4.7 Article

Establishment of well-differentiated camelid airway cultures to study Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13777-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [721367]
  2. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01KI1723A]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [31CA30_196062]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31CA30_196062] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study successfully established a culture model that mimics camel airway epithelium and reflects MERS-CoV infection. The research found that MERS-CoV exhibits different cell tropism and replication kinetics in the camel model, and can be inhibited by interferons. This model will contribute to the understanding of MERS-CoV cross-species transmission in respiratory epithelium.
In 2012, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) emerged in Saudi Arabia and was mostly associated with severe respiratory illness in humans. Dromedary camels are the zoonotic reservoir for MERS-CoV. To investigate the biology of MERS-CoV in camelids, we developed a well-differentiated airway epithelial cell (AEC) culture model for Llama glama and Camelus bactrianus. Histological characterization revealed progressive epithelial cellular differentiation with well-resemblance to autologous ex vivo tissues. We demonstrate that MERS-CoV displays a divergent cell tropism and replication kinetics profile in both AEC models. Furthermore, we observed that in the camelid AEC models MERS-CoV replication can be inhibited by both type I and III interferons (IFNs). In conclusion, we successfully established camelid AEC cultures that recapitulate the in vivo airway epithelium and reflect MERS-CoV infection in vivo. In combination with human AEC cultures, this system allows detailed characterization of the molecular basis of MERS-CoV cross-species transmission in respiratory epithelium.

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