4.8 Article

Key Components of Inflammasome and Pyroptosis Pathways Are Deficient in Canines and Felines, Possibly Affecting Their Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection

期刊

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.592622

关键词

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2; canines; inflammasome; felines; pyroptosis

资金

  1. National Key Plan for Research and Development of China [2016YFD0500300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871663, 82072270]
  3. Academic promotion programme of Shandong First Medical University [2019LJ001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative genomics study reveals differences in key components of the inflammasome and pyroptosis pathways among dogs, cats, and tigers, possibly contributing to milder symptoms. Cats and tigers lack AIM2 and NLRP1, while dogs lack AIM2 and encode a shorter form of NLRC4. Deficiencies in these pathways may provide an evolutionary advantage against SARS-CoV-2 by reducing cytokine storm-induced host damage.
SARS-CoV-2 causes the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Natural SARS-COV-2 infection has been detected in dogs, cats and tigers. However, the symptoms in canines and felines were mild. The underlying mechanisms are unknown. Excessive activation of inflammasome pathways can trigger cytokine storm and severe damage to host. In current study, we performed a comparative genomics study of key components of inflammasome and pyroptosis pathways in dogs, cats and tigers. Cats and tigers do not have AIM2 and NLRP1. Dogs do not contain AIM2, and encode a short form of NLRC4. The activation sites in GSDMB were absent in dogs, cats and tigers, while GSDME activation sites in cats and tigers were abolished. We propose that deficiencies of inflammasome and pyroptosis pathways might provide an evolutionary advantage against SARS-CoV-2 by reducing cytokine storm-induced host damage. Our findings will shed important lights on the mild symptoms in canines and felines infected with SARS-CoV-2.

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

4.8
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