4.1 Article

Viral and Host Attributes Underlying the Origins of Zoonotic Coronaviruses in Bats

期刊

COMPARATIVE MEDICINE
卷 71, 期 5, 页码 442-450

出版社

AMER ASSOC LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-CM-21-000027

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH Comparative Medicine Training Program [T32OD011000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

COVID-19 pandemic, presumed to have originated in bats, has caused significant morbidity and mortality in the human population. Bats not only serve as reservoirs for coronaviruses but also various other viruses, possibly due to unique aspects of their immune system physiology. The presence of a furin cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 may play a crucial role in allowing the virus to overcome species barriers and cause human disease.
With a presumed origin in bats, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a major source of morbidity and mortality in the human population, and the causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, aligns most closely at the genome level with the bat coronaviruses RaBtCoV4991/RaTG13 and RmYN02. The ability of bats to provide reservoirs of numerous viruses in addition to coronaviruses remains an active area of research. Unique aspects of the physiology of the chiropteran immune system may contribute to the ability of bats to serve as viral reservoirs. The coronavirus spike protein plays important roles in viral pathogenesis and the immune response. Although much attention has focused on the spike receptor-binding domain, a unique aspect of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with its closest relatives is the presence of a furin cleavage site in the S1-S2 region of the spike protein. Proteolytic activation is likely an important feature that allows SARS-CoV-2-and other coronaviruses-to overcome the species barriers and thus cause human disease. The diversity of bat species limits the ability to draw broad conclusions about viral pathogenesis, but comparisons across species and with reference to humans and other susceptible mammals may guide future research in this regard.

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

4.1
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