20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Suppression of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in ex‐vivo human lung tissues by targeting class III phosphoinositide 3‐kinase

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The novel betacoronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged at the end of 2019 and caused the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID‐19) pandemic due to its high transmissibility and early immunosuppression. Previous studies on other betacoronaviruses suggested that betacoronavirus infection is associated with the host autophagy pathway. However, it is unclear whether any components of autophagy or virophagy can be therapeutic targets for COVID‐19 treatment. In this report, we examined the antiviral effect of four well‐characterized small molecule inhibitors that target the key cellular factors involved in key steps of the autophagy pathway. They include small molecules targeting the ULK1/Atg1 complex involved in the induction stage of autophagy (ULK1 inhibitor SBI0206965), the ATG14/Beclin1/VPS34 complex involved in the nucleation step of autophagy (class III PI3‐kinase inhibitor VPS34‐IN1), and a widely‐used autophagy inhibitor that persistently inhibits class I and temporary inhibits class III PI3‐kinase (3‐MA) and a clinically approved autophagy inhibitor that suppresses autophagy by inhibiting lysosomal acidification and prevents the formation of autophagolysosome (HCQ). Surprisingly, not all the tested autophagy inhibitors suppressed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We showed that inhibition of class III PI3‐kinase involved in the initiation step of both canonical and noncanonical autophagy potently suppressed SARS‐CoV‐2 at a nano‐molar level. In addition, this specific kinase inhibitor VPS34‐IN1, and its bioavailable analogue VVPS34‐IN1, potently inhibited SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in ex vivo human lung tissues. Taken together, class III PI3‐kinase may be a possible target for COVID‐19 therapeutic development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro

          Dear Editor, In December 2019, a novel pneumonia caused by a previously unknown pathogen emerged in Wuhan, a city of 11 million people in central China. The initial cases were linked to exposures in a seafood market in Wuhan. 1 As of January 27, 2020, the Chinese authorities reported 2835 confirmed cases in mainland China, including 81 deaths. Additionally, 19 confirmed cases were identified in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and 39 imported cases were identified in Thailand, Japan, South Korea, United States, Vietnam, Singapore, Nepal, France, Australia and Canada. The pathogen was soon identified as a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which is closely related to sever acute respiratory syndrome CoV (SARS-CoV). 2 Currently, there is no specific treatment against the new virus. Therefore, identifying effective antiviral agents to combat the disease is urgently needed. An efficient approach to drug discovery is to test whether the existing antiviral drugs are effective in treating related viral infections. The 2019-nCoV belongs to Betacoronavirus which also contains SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome CoV (MERS-CoV). Several drugs, such as ribavirin, interferon, lopinavir-ritonavir, corticosteroids, have been used in patients with SARS or MERS, although the efficacy of some drugs remains controversial. 3 In this study, we evaluated the antiviral efficiency of five FAD-approved drugs including ribavirin, penciclovir, nitazoxanide, nafamostat, chloroquine and two well-known broad-spectrum antiviral drugs remdesivir (GS-5734) and favipiravir (T-705) against a clinical isolate of 2019-nCoV in vitro. Standard assays were carried out to measure the effects of these compounds on the cytotoxicity, virus yield and infection rates of 2019-nCoVs. Firstly, the cytotoxicity of the candidate compounds in Vero E6 cells (ATCC-1586) was determined by the CCK8 assay. Then, Vero E6 cells were infected with nCoV-2019BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019 2 at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05 in the presence of varying concentrations of the test drugs. DMSO was used in the controls. Efficacies were evaluated by quantification of viral copy numbers in the cell supernatant via quantitative real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) and confirmed with visualization of virus nucleoprotein (NP) expression through immunofluorescence microscopy at 48 h post infection (p.i.) (cytopathic effect was not obvious at this time point of infection). Among the seven tested drugs, high concentrations of three nucleoside analogs including ribavirin (half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) = 109.50 μM, half-cytotoxic concentration (CC50) > 400 μM, selectivity index (SI) > 3.65), penciclovir (EC50 = 95.96 μM, CC50 > 400 μM, SI > 4.17) and favipiravir (EC50 = 61.88 μM, CC50 > 400 μM, SI > 6.46) were required to reduce the viral infection (Fig. 1a and Supplementary information, Fig. S1). However, favipiravir has been shown to be 100% effective in protecting mice against Ebola virus challenge, although its EC50 value in Vero E6 cells was as high as 67 μM, 4 suggesting further in vivo studies are recommended to evaluate this antiviral nucleoside. Nafamostat, a potent inhibitor of MERS-CoV, which prevents membrane fusion, was inhibitive against the 2019-nCoV infection (EC50 = 22.50 μM, CC50 > 100 μM, SI > 4.44). Nitazoxanide, a commercial antiprotozoal agent with an antiviral potential against a broad range of viruses including human and animal coronaviruses, inhibited the 2019-nCoV at a low-micromolar concentration (EC50 = 2.12 μM; CC50 > 35.53 μM; SI > 16.76). Further in vivo evaluation of this drug against 2019-nCoV infection is recommended. Notably, two compounds remdesivir (EC50 = 0.77 μM; CC50 > 100 μM; SI > 129.87) and chloroquine (EC50 = 1.13 μM; CC50 > 100 μM, SI > 88.50) potently blocked virus infection at low-micromolar concentration and showed high SI (Fig. 1a, b). Fig. 1 The antiviral activities of the test drugs against 2019-nCoV in vitro. a Vero E6 cells were infected with 2019-nCoV at an MOI of 0.05 in the treatment of different doses of the indicated antivirals for 48 h. The viral yield in the cell supernatant was then quantified by qRT-PCR. Cytotoxicity of these drugs to Vero E6 cells was measured by CCK-8 assays. The left and right Y-axis of the graphs represent mean % inhibition of virus yield and cytotoxicity of the drugs, respectively. The experiments were done in triplicates. b Immunofluorescence microscopy of virus infection upon treatment of remdesivir and chloroquine. Virus infection and drug treatment were performed as mentioned above. At 48 h p.i., the infected cells were fixed, and then probed with rabbit sera against the NP of a bat SARS-related CoV 2 as the primary antibody and Alexa 488-labeled goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:500; Abcam) as the secondary antibody, respectively. The nuclei were stained with Hoechst dye. Bars, 100 μm. c and d Time-of-addition experiment of remdesivir and chloroquine. For “Full-time” treatment, Vero E6 cells were pre-treated with the drugs for 1 h, and virus was then added to allow attachment for 2 h. Afterwards, the virus–drug mixture was removed, and the cells were cultured with drug-containing medium until the end of the experiment. For “Entry” treatment, the drugs were added to the cells for 1 h before viral attachment, and at 2 h p.i., the virus–drug mixture was replaced with fresh culture medium and maintained till the end of the experiment. For “Post-entry” experiment, drugs were added at 2 h p.i., and maintained until the end of the experiment. For all the experimental groups, cells were infected with 2019-nCoV at an MOI of 0.05, and virus yield in the infected cell supernatants was quantified by qRT-PCR c and NP expression in infected cells was analyzed by Western blot d at 14 h p.i. Remdesivir has been recently recognized as a promising antiviral drug against a wide array of RNA viruses (including SARS/MERS-CoV 5 ) infection in cultured cells, mice and nonhuman primate (NHP) models. It is currently under clinical development for the treatment of Ebola virus infection. 6 Remdesivir is an adenosine analogue, which incorporates into nascent viral RNA chains and results in pre-mature termination. 7 Our time-of-addition assay showed remdesivir functioned at a stage post virus entry (Fig. 1c, d), which is in agreement with its putative anti-viral mechanism as a nucleotide analogue. Warren et al. showed that in NHP model, intravenous administration of 10 mg/kg dose of remdesivir resulted in concomitant persistent levels of its active form in the blood (10 μM) and conferred 100% protection against Ebola virus infection. 7 Our data showed that EC90 value of remdesivir against 2019-nCoV in Vero E6 cells was 1.76 μM, suggesting its working concentration is likely to be achieved in NHP. Our preliminary data (Supplementary information, Fig. S2) showed that remdesivir also inhibited virus infection efficiently in a human cell line (human liver cancer Huh-7 cells), which is sensitive to 2019-nCoV. 2 Chloroquine, a widely-used anti-malarial and autoimmune disease drug, has recently been reported as a potential broad-spectrum antiviral drug. 8,9 Chloroquine is known to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus/cell fusion, as well as interfering with the glycosylation of cellular receptors of SARS-CoV. 10 Our time-of-addition assay demonstrated that chloroquine functioned at both entry, and at post-entry stages of the 2019-nCoV infection in Vero E6 cells (Fig. 1c, d). Besides its antiviral activity, chloroquine has an immune-modulating activity, which may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo. Chloroquine is widely distributed in the whole body, including lung, after oral administration. The EC90 value of chloroquine against the 2019-nCoV in Vero E6 cells was 6.90 μM, which can be clinically achievable as demonstrated in the plasma of rheumatoid arthritis patients who received 500 mg administration. 11 Chloroquine is a cheap and a safe drug that has been used for more than 70 years and, therefore, it is potentially clinically applicable against the 2019-nCoV. Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease. Supplementary information Supplementary information, Materials and Figures
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro

            Dear Editor, The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV) poses a serious threat to global public health and local economies. As of March 3, 2020, over 80,000 cases have been confirmed in China, including 2946 deaths as well as over 10,566 confirmed cases in 72 other countries. Such huge numbers of infected and dead people call for an urgent demand of effective, available, and affordable drugs to control and diminish the epidemic. We have recently reported that two drugs, remdesivir (GS-5734) and chloroquine (CQ) phosphate, efficiently inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro 1 . Remdesivir is a nucleoside analog prodrug developed by Gilead Sciences (USA). A recent case report showed that treatment with remdesivir improved the clinical condition of the first patient infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the United States 2 , and a phase III clinical trial of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 was launched in Wuhan on February 4, 2020. However, as an experimental drug, remdesivir is not expected to be largely available for treating a very large number of patients in a timely manner. Therefore, of the two potential drugs, CQ appears to be the drug of choice for large-scale use due to its availability, proven safety record, and a relatively low cost. In light of the preliminary clinical data, CQ has been added to the list of trial drugs in the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19 (sixth edition) published by National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. CQ (N4-(7-Chloro-4-quinolinyl)-N1,N1-diethyl-1,4-pentanediamine) has long been used to treat malaria and amebiasis. However, Plasmodium falciparum developed widespread resistance to it, and with the development of new antimalarials, it has become a choice for the prophylaxis of malaria. In addition, an overdose of CQ can cause acute poisoning and death 3 . In the past years, due to infrequent utilization of CQ in clinical practice, its production and market supply was greatly reduced, at least in China. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sulfate, a derivative of CQ, was first synthesized in 1946 by introducing a hydroxyl group into CQ and was demonstrated to be much less (~40%) toxic than CQ in animals 4 . More importantly, HCQ is still widely available to treat autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. Since CQ and HCQ share similar chemical structures and mechanisms of acting as a weak base and immunomodulator, it is easy to conjure up the idea that HCQ may be a potent candidate to treat infection by SARS-CoV-2. Actually, as of February 23, 2020, seven clinical trial registries were found in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn) for using HCQ to treat COVID-19. Whether HCQ is as efficacious as CQ in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection still lacks the experimental evidence. To this end, we evaluated the antiviral effect of HCQ against SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to CQ in vitro. First, the cytotoxicity of HCQ and CQ in African green monkey kidney VeroE6 cells (ATCC-1586) was measured by standard CCK8 assay, and the result showed that the 50% cytotoxic concentration (CC50) values of CQ and HCQ were 273.20 and 249.50 μM, respectively, which are not significantly different from each other (Fig. 1a). To better compare the antiviral activity of CQ versus HCQ, the dose–response curves of the two compounds against SARS-CoV-2 were determined at four different multiplicities of infection (MOIs) by quantification of viral RNA copy numbers in the cell supernatant at 48 h post infection (p.i.). The data summarized in Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table S1 show that, at all MOIs (0.01, 0.02, 0.2, and 0.8), the 50% maximal effective concentration (EC50) for CQ (2.71, 3.81, 7.14, and 7.36 μM) was lower than that of HCQ (4.51, 4.06, 17.31, and 12.96 μM). The differences in EC50 values were statistically significant at an MOI of 0.01 (P   30 cells) was quantified and is shown in b. Representative confocal microscopic images of viral particles (red), EEA1+ EEs (green), or LAMP1+ ELs (green) in each group are displayed in c. The enlarged images in the boxes indicate a single vesicle-containing virion. The arrows indicated the abnormally enlarged vesicles. Bars, 5 μm. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with GraphPad Prism (F = 102.8, df = 5,182, ***P   30 cells for each group). By contrast, in the presence of CQ or HCQ, significantly more virions (35.3% for CQ and 29.2% for HCQ; P   30 cells) (Fig. 1b, c). This suggested that both CQ and HCQ blocked the transport of SARS-CoV-2 from EEs to ELs, which appears to be a requirement to release the viral genome as in the case of SARS-CoV 7 . Interestingly, we found that CQ and HCQ treatment caused noticeable changes in the number and size/morphology of EEs and ELs (Fig. 1c). In the untreated cells, most EEs were much smaller than ELs (Fig. 1c). In CQ- and HCQ-treated cells, abnormally enlarged EE vesicles were observed (Fig. 1c, arrows in the upper panels), many of which are even larger than ELs in the untreated cells. This is in agreement with previous report that treatment with CQ induced the formation of expanded cytoplasmic vesicles 8 . Within the EE vesicles, virions (red) were localized around the membrane (green) of the vesicle. CQ treatment did not cause obvious changes in the number and size of ELs; however, the regular vesicle structure seemed to be disrupted, at least partially. By contrast, in HCQ-treated cells, the size and number of ELs increased significantly (Fig. 1c, arrows in the lower panels). Since acidification is crucial for endosome maturation and function, we surmise that endosome maturation might be blocked at intermediate stages of endocytosis, resulting in failure of further transport of virions to the ultimate releasing site. CQ was reported to elevate the pH of lysosome from about 4.5 to 6.5 at 100 μM 9 . To our knowledge, there is a lack of studies on the impact of HCQ on the morphology and pH values of endosomes/lysosomes. Our observations suggested that the mode of actions of CQ and HCQ appear to be distinct in certain aspects. It has been reported that oral absorption of CQ and HCQ in humans is very efficient. In animals, both drugs share similar tissue distribution patterns, with high concentrations in the liver, spleen, kidney, and lung reaching levels of 200–700 times higher than those in the plasma 10 . It was reported that safe dosage (6–6.5 mg/kg per day) of HCQ sulfate could generate serum levels of 1.4–1.5 μM in humans 11 . Therefore, with a safe dosage, HCQ concentration in the above tissues is likely to be achieved to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical investigation found that high concentration of cytokines were detected in the plasma of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that cytokine storm was associated with disease severity 12 . Other than its direct antiviral activity, HCQ is a safe and successful anti-inflammatory agent that has been used extensively in autoimmune diseases and can significantly decrease the production of cytokines and, in particular, pro-inflammatory factors. Therefore, in COVID-19 patients, HCQ may also contribute to attenuating the inflammatory response. In conclusion, our results show that HCQ can efficiently inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. In combination with its anti-inflammatory function, we predict that the drug has a good potential to combat the disease. This possibility awaits confirmation by clinical trials. We need to point out, although HCQ is less toxic than CQ, prolonged and overdose usage can still cause poisoning. And the relatively low SI of HCQ requires careful designing and conducting of clinical trials to achieve efficient and safe control of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Supplementary information Supplemental Materials
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparative replication and immune activation profiles of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV in human lungs: an ex vivo study with implications for the pathogenesis of COVID-19

              Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging coronavirus that has resulted in nearly 1,000,000 laboratory-confirmed cases including over 50,000 deaths. Although SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV share a number of common clinical manifestations, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly efficient in person-to-person transmission and frequently cause asymptomatic infections. However, the underlying mechanism that confers these viral characteristics on high transmissibility and asymptomatic infection remain incompletely understood. Methods We comprehensively investigated the replication, cell tropism, and immune activation profile of SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lung tissues with SARS-CoV included as a comparison. Results SARS-CoV-2 infected and replicated in human lung tissues more efficiently than that of SARS-CoV. Within the 48-hour interval, SARS-CoV-2 generated 3.20 folds more infectious virus particles than that of SARS-CoV from the infected lung tissues (P<0.024). SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV were similar in cell tropism, with both targeting types I and II pneumocytes, and alveolar macrophages. Importantly, despite the more efficient virus replication, SARS-CoV-2 did not significantly induce types I, II, or III interferons in the infected human lung tissues. In addition, while SARS-CoV infection upregulated the expression of 11 out of 13 (84.62%) representative pro-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, SARS-CoV-2 infection only upregulated 5 of these 13 (38.46%) key inflammatory mediators despite replicating more efficiently. Conclusions Our study provided the first quantitative data on the comparative replication capacity and immune activation profile of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection in human lung tissues. Our results provided important insights on the pathogenesis, high transmissibility, and asymptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                khkok@hku.hk
                Journal
                J Med Virol
                J Med Virol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9071
                JMV
                Journal of Medical Virology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0146-6615
                1096-9071
                30 October 2020
                : 10.1002/jmv.26583
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Hong Kong China
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Kin‐Hang Kok, Department of Microbiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, L5‐45A, Laboratory Block, 21 Sassoon Road, Hong Kong, China.

                Email: khkok@ 123456hku.hk

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3426-332X
                Article
                JMV26583
                10.1002/jmv.26583
                7675438
                33026649
                50a09597-ca06-472f-a5dc-b9ed22652155
                © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 28 August 2020
                : 01 October 2020
                : 03 October 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Pages: 8, Words: 4521
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100002920;
                Award ID: 17123420
                Funded by: Theme‐Based Research Scheme
                Award ID: T11/707/15‐R
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.4 mode:remove_FC converted:19.11.2020

                Microbiology & Virology
                class iii pi3‐k,covid‐19,ex vivo human lung tissues,sars‐cov‐2,vps34

                Comments

                Comment on this article