4.4 Article

Differential Signaling and Virus Production in Calu-3 Cells and Vero Cells upon SARS-CoV-2 Infection

期刊

BIOMOLECULES & THERAPEUTICS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 273-281

出版社

KOREAN SOC APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
DOI: 10.4062/biomolther.2020.226

关键词

Apoptosis; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; STAT1; STAT3; STAT3 phosphorylation

资金

  1. National Research Foundation [NRF-2016M3A9B6916708, NRF-2020R1A2B5B02001806, NRF-2020M3A9I2107294]
  2. Ministry of Science and ICT in the Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that different cell lines, Vero and Calu-3, exhibit varying cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, resulting in different virus production and apoptosis rates. In Calu-3 cells, inhibitors targeting STAT3 phosphorylation and dimerization have a certain effect on reducing virus production. Therefore, evaluating cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in different cell lines is crucial for studying virus treatments.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Signaling pathways that are essential for virus production have potential as therapeutic targets against COVID-19. In this study, we investigated cellular responses in two cell lines, Vero and Calu-3, upon SARS-CoV-2 infection and evaluated the effects of pathway-specific inhibitors on virus production. SARS-CoV-2 infection induced dephosphorylation of STAT1 and STAT3, high virus production, and apoptosis in Vero cells. However, in Calu-3 cells, SARS-CoV-2 infection induced long-lasting phosphorylation of STAT1 and STAT3, low virus production, and no prominent apoptosis. Inhibitors that target STAT3 phosphorylation and dimerization reduced SARS-CoV-2 production in Calu-3 cells, but not in Vero cells. These results suggest a necessity to evaluate cellular consequences upon SARS-CoV-2 infection using various model cell lines to find out more appropriate cells recapitulating relevant responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro.

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

4.4
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