4.7 Article

Differential abundance of lipids and metabolites related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and susceptibility

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40999-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the lipid and metabolite profiles related to SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and COVID-19 severity. By comparing unvaccinated healthcare workers who remained uninfected with those who became infected, the researchers identified specific lipid profiles that could explain the differences in susceptibility. The findings suggest that an upregulation of certain lipids, such as ceramides and sphingomyelin, may indicate lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The mechanisms driving SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility remain poorly understood, especially the factors determining why unvaccinated individuals remain uninfected despite high-risk exposures. To understand lipid and metabolite profiles related with COVID-19 susceptibility and disease progression. We collected samples from an exceptional group of unvaccinated healthcare workers heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 but not infected ('non-susceptible') and subjects who became infected during the follow-up ('susceptible'), including non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with different disease severity providing samples at early disease stages. Then, we analyzed their plasma metabolomic profiles using mass spectrometry coupled with liquid and gas chromatography. We show specific lipids profiles and metabolites that could explain SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and COVID-19 severity. More importantly, non-susceptible individuals show a unique lipidomic pattern characterized by the upregulation of most lipids, especially ceramides and sphingomyelin, which could be interpreted as markers of low susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study strengthens the findings of other researchers about the importance of studying lipid profiles as relevant markers of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis.

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