4.7 Article

No evidence for basigin/CD147 as a direct SARS-CoV-2 spike binding receptor

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80464-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [206194, PRF 210688/Z/18/Z]
  2. UKRI/NIHR through the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC)
  3. MRC [MR/V028448/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that basigin may not be the receptor for SARS-CoV-2 virus to invade human cells, and removing basigin from the surface of human lung epithelial cells does not affect susceptibility to the virus. These findings provide more information for a better understanding and treatment of COVID-19.
The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is known to enable viral invasion into human cells through direct binding to host receptors including ACE2. An alternate entry receptor for the virus was recently proposed to be basigin/CD147. These early studies have already prompted a clinical trial and multiple published hypotheses speculating on the role of this host receptor in viral infection and pathogenesis. Here, we report that we are unable to find evidence supporting the role of basigin as a putative spike binding receptor. Recombinant forms of the SARS-CoV-2 spike do not interact with basigin expressed on the surface of human cells, and by using specialized assays tailored to detect receptor interactions as weak or weaker than the proposed basigin-spike binding, we report no evidence for a direct interaction between the viral spike protein to either of the two common isoforms of basigin. Finally, removing basigin from the surface of human lung epithelial cells by CRISPR/Cas9 results in no change in their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given the pressing need for clarity on which viral targets may lead to promising therapeutics, we present these findings to allow more informed decisions about the translational relevance of this putative mechanism in the race to understand and treat COVID-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据