4.7 Article

Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Entry by the Crude Polysaccharides of Seaweeds and Abalone Viscera In Vitro

期刊

MARINE DRUGS
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/md19040219

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; seaweed; abalone viscera; polysaccharide; antiviral activity; antioxidant

资金

  1. Jeonnam Provincial Government and Wando county through the Research Support Grant Project for screening the antiviral activity of seaweeds against COVID-19

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated that crude polysaccharides extracted from seaweeds and abalone viscera can effectively inhibit the entry of SARS-CoV-2, with Sargassum horneri showing the strongest antiviral activity among them.
Much attention is being devoted to the potential of marine sulfated polysaccharides as antiviral agents in preventing COVID-19. In this study, sulfated fucoidan and crude polysaccharides, extracted from six seaweed species (Undaria pinnatifida sporophyll, Laminaria japonica, Hizikia fusiforme, Sargassum horneri, Codium fragile, Porphyra tenera) and Haliotis discus hannai (abalone viscera), were screened for their inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus entry. Most of them showed significant antiviral activities at an IC50 of 12 similar to 289 mu g/mL against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus in HEK293/ACE2, except for P. tenera (IC50 > 1000 mu g/mL). The crude polysaccharide of S. horneri showed the strongest antiviral activity, with an IC50 of 12 mu g/mL, to prevent COVID-19 entry, and abalone viscera and H. fusiforme could also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection with an IC50 of 33 mu g/mL and 47 mu g/mL, respectively. The common properties of these crude polysaccharides, which have strong antiviral activity, are high molecular weight (>800 kDa), high total carbohydrate (62.7 similar to 99.1%), high fucose content (37.3 similar to 66.2%), and highly branched polysaccharides. These results indicated that the crude polysaccharides from seaweeds and abalone viscera can effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry.

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