4.5 Article

Organ-specific or personalized treatment for COVID-19: rationale, evidence, and potential candidates

期刊

FUNCTIONAL & INTEGRATIVE GENOMICS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 429-433

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10142-022-00841-z

关键词

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Organ-specific treatment; Personalized medicine; Drug repurposing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 are increasingly reported, there is still no effective therapeutic strategy. This study analyzed differentially expressed genes in SARS-CoV-2-infected extrapulmonary organs and identified organ-specific biological pathways and genes. Potential therapeutic drugs were also suggested for each infected cell line.
Although extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are increasingly reported, no effective therapeutic strategy for these multisystemic complications is available due to a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19 multiorgan involvement. In this study, differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected extrapulmonary organs including human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs)-derived liver organoids and choroid plexus organoids besides transformed lung alveolar (A549) cells were analyzed. First, pathway enrichment analysis was done to compare the underlying biological pathways enriched upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in different organs. Then, these lists of DEGs were used in a connectivity map (CMap)-based drug repurposing experiment. Also, protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis was done to compare the associated hub genes. The results revealed different biological pathways and genes responsible for SARS-CoV-2 multisystemic pathogenesis based on the organ involved that highlighted the need for considering organ-specific treatments or even personalized therapy. Besides, some FDA-approved drugs were proposed as the potential therapeutic candidates for each infected cell line.

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

4.5
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