4.6 Review

Innate Immunity Evasion Strategies of Highly Pathogenic Coronaviruses: SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.770656

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; highly pathogenic coronaviruses; IFN signaling pathway; host-virus interaction; innate immunity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32041001, 81902070]
  2. Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2019JJ20004, 2019JJ50035]
  3. Hunan Innovative Province Construction Project [2019SK2211]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [531118010008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article reviews recent studies on the interference and infection process of highly pathogenic human coronaviruses (HP-hCoVs) in cells. HP-hCoVs employ various strategies to suppress immune responses, which is important for understanding the viral pathogenesis and developing antiviral therapies.
In the past two decades, coronavirus (CoV) has emerged frequently in the population. Three CoVs (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2) have been identified as highly pathogenic human coronaviruses (HP-hCoVs). Particularly, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 warns that HP-hCoVs present a high risk to human health. Like other viruses, HP-hCoVs interact with their host cells in sophisticated manners for infection and pathogenesis. Here, we reviewed the current knowledge about the interference of HP-hCoVs in multiple cellular processes and their impacts on viral infection. HP-hCoVs employed various strategies to suppress and evade from immune response, including shielding viral RNA from recognition by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), impairing IFN-I production, blocking the downstream pathways of IFN-I, and other evasion strategies. This summary provides a comprehensive view of the interplay between HP-hCoVs and the host cells, which is helpful to understand the mechanism of viral pathogenesis and develop antiviral therapies.

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

4.6
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