document_id
int64 185
2.68k
| context
stringlengths 2.88k
70.8k
| question
stringlengths 11
194
| id
int64 225
5.32k
| answer
stringlengths 1
933
| answer_start
int64 157
69k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | Which are some phage based contraceptive vaccines for animals? | 1,744 | immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes | 13,997 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | Which are some phage based contraceptive vaccines for animals? | 1,745 | Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development. | 14,172 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is one reason for the lack of success of immunization phage displayed peptides with native protein? | 1,747 | it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope. | 15,926 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | Despite shortcomings, what has the filamentous phage has been useful for? | 1,748 | as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity | 16,387 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is the result of all species tests of phage particles? | 1,749 | is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) | 20,826 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What are the results of filamentous phage immunizations in mice? | 1,750 | serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . | 21,992 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is the primary antibody response against the phage? | 1,751 | composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . | 22,227 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | Why is phage self-adjuvanting? | 1,752 | Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. | 24,877 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | On what does the antibody response to phage depend on? | 1,753 | MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important | 25,228 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What do biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show? | 1,754 | it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. | 25,552 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What are the merits of the filamentous phage carriers? | 1,755 | the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen. | 25,809 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is a future potential of filamentous phage? | 1,756 | as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections. | 27,890 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol? | 1,757 | M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker | 28,475 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What killed prostate cancer cells in vitro? | 1,758 | M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII | 28,758 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What was the effect of phage displaying peptides on tumor? | 1,759 | Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) | 29,469 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | Why is the phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils is a good diagnostic for Alzheimers and Parkinson's disease? | 1,760 | ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) | 30,008 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is the structure of a filamentous phage particle? | 1,761 | is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) | 33,493 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What makes filamentous phage ideal scaffold for bioconjugation? | 1,762 | The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups | 33,772 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What trials have been done to demonstrate the potential of phage in applications for nanomaterials? | 1,763 | Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. | 35,140 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What trials have been done to demonstrate the potential of phage in applications for nanomaterials? | 1,764 | Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. | 35,374 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What is the filamentous phage varion is made of? | 1,765 | made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding | 35,657 |
1,674 | Beyond phage display: non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523942/
SHA: f00f183d0bce0091a02349ec1eab44a76dad9bc4
Authors: Henry, Kevin A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, Mehdi; Scott, Jamie K.
Date: 2015-08-04
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00755
License: cc-by
Abstract: For the past 25 years, phage display technology has been an invaluable tool for studies of protein–protein interactions. However, the inherent biological, biochemical, and biophysical properties of filamentous bacteriophage, as well as the ease of its genetic manipulation, also make it an attractive platform outside the traditional phage display canon. This review will focus on the unique properties of the filamentous bacteriophage and highlight its diverse applications in current research. Particular emphases are placed on: (i) the advantages of the phage as a vaccine carrier, including its high immunogenicity, relative antigenic simplicity and ability to activate a range of immune responses, (ii) the phage’s potential as a prophylactic and therapeutic agent for infectious and chronic diseases, (iii) the regularity of the virion major coat protein lattice, which enables a variety of bioconjugation and surface chemistry applications, particularly in nanomaterials, and (iv) the phage’s large population sizes and fast generation times, which make it an excellent model system for directed protein evolution. Despite their ubiquity in the biosphere, metagenomics work is just beginning to explore the ecology of filamentous and non-filamentous phage, and their role in the evolution of bacterial populations. Thus, the filamentous phage represents a robust, inexpensive, and versatile microorganism whose bioengineering applications continue to expand in new directions, although its limitations in some spheres impose obstacles to its widespread adoption and use.
Text: The filamentous bacteriophage (genera Inovirus and Plectrovirus) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped viruses of Escherichia coli whose long helical capsids encapsulate a single-stranded circular DNA genome. Subsequent to the independent discovery of bacteriophage by Twort (1915) and d 'Hérelle (1917) , the first filamentous phage, f1, was isolated in Loeb (1960) and later characterized as a member of a larger group of phage (Ff, including f1, M13, and fd phage) specific for the E. coli conjugative F pilus (Hofschneider and Mueller-Jensen, 1963; Marvin and Hoffmann-Berling, 1963; Zinder et al., 1963; Salivar et al., 1964) . Soon thereafter, filamentous phage were discovered that do not use F-pili for entry (If and Ike; Meynell and Lawn, 1968; Khatoon et al., 1972) , and over time the list of known filamentous phage has expanded to over 60 members (Fauquet et al., 2005) , including temperate and Gram-positivetropic species. Work by multiple groups over the past 50 years has contributed to a relatively sophisticated understanding of filamentous phage structure, biology and life cycle (reviewed in Marvin, 1998; Rakonjac et al., 2011; Rakonjac, 2012) .
In the mid-1980s, the principle of modifying the filamentous phage genome to display polypeptides as fusions to coat proteins on the virion surface was invented by Smith and colleagues (Smith, 1985; Parmley and Smith, 1988) . Based on the ideas described in Parmley and Smith (1988) , groups in California, Germany, and the UK developed phage-display platforms to create and screen libraries of peptide and folded-protein variants (Bass et al., 1990; Devlin et al., 1990; McCafferty et al., 1990; Scott and Smith, 1990; Breitling et al., 1991; Kang et al., 1991) . This technology allowed, for the first time, the ability to seamlessly connect genetic information with protein function for a large number of protein variants simultaneously, and has been widely and productively exploited in studies of proteinprotein interactions. Many excellent reviews are available on phage-display libraries and their applications (Kehoe and Kay, 2005; Bratkovic, 2010; Pande et al., 2010) . However, the phage also has a number of unique structural and biological properties that make it highly useful in areas of research that have received far less attention.
Thus, the purpose of this review is to highlight recent and current work using filamentous phage in novel and nontraditional applications. Specifically, we refer to projects that rely on the filamentous phage as a key element, but whose primary purpose is not the generation or screening of phagedisplayed libraries to obtain binding polypeptide ligands. These tend to fall into four major categories of use: (i) filamentous phage as a vaccine carrier; (ii) engineered filamentous phage as a therapeutic biologic agent in infectious and chronic diseases; (iii) filamentous phage as a scaffold for bioconjugation and surface chemistry; and (iv) filamentous phage as an engine for evolving variants of displayed proteins with novel functions. A final section is dedicated to recent developments in filamentous phage ecology and phage-host interactions. Common themes shared amongst all these applications include the unique biological, immunological, and physicochemical properties of the phage, its ability to display a variety of biomolecules in modular fashion, and its relative simplicity and ease of manipulation.
Nearly all applications of the filamentous phage depend on its ability to display polypeptides on the virion's surface as fusions to phage coat proteins ( Table 1) . The display mode determines the maximum tolerated size of the fused polypeptide, its copy number on the phage, and potentially, the structure of the displayed polypeptide. Display may be achieved by fusing DNA encoding a polypeptide of interest directly to the gene encoding a coat protein within the phage genome (type 8 display on pVIII, type 3 display on pIII, etc.), resulting in fully recombinant phage. Much more commonly, however, only one copy of the coat protein is modified in the presence of a second, wild-type copy (e.g., type 88 display if both recombinant and wild-type pVIII genes are on the phage genome, type 8+8 display if the Parmley and Smith (1988), McConnell et al. (1994) , Rondot et al. (2001) Hybrid (type 33 and 3+3 systems) Type 3+3 system <1 2 Smith and Scott (1993) , Smith and Petrenko (1997) pVI Hybrid (type 6+6 system) Yes <1 2 >25 kDa Hufton et al. (1999) pVII Fully recombinant (type 7 system) No ∼5 >25 kDa Kwasnikowski et al. (2005) Hybrid (type 7+7 system) Yes <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) pVIII Fully recombinant (landscape phage; type 8 system)
No 2700 3 ∼5-8 residues Kishchenko et al. (1994) , Petrenko et al. (1996) Hybrid (type 88 and 8+8 systems) Type 8+8 system ∼1-300 2 >50 kDa Scott and Smith (1990) , Greenwood et al. (1991) , Smith and Fernandez (2004) pIX Fully recombinant (type 9+9 * system) Yes ∼5 >25 kDa Gao et al. (2002) Hybrid (type 9+9 system) No <1 2 Gao et al. (1999) , Shi et al. (2010) , Tornetta et al. (2010) 1 Asterisks indicate non-functional copies of the coat protein are present in the genome of the helper phage used to rescue a phagemid whose coat protein has been fused to a recombinant polypeptide. 2 The copy number depends on polypeptide size; typically <1 copy per phage particle but for pVIII peptide display can be up to ∼15% of pVIII molecules in hybrid virions. 3 The total number of pVIII molecules depends on the phage genome size; one pVIII molecule is added for every 2.3 nucleotides in the viral genome. recombinant gene 8 is on a plasmid with a phage origin of replication) resulting in a hybrid virion bearing two different types of a given coat protein. Multivalent display on some coat proteins can also be enforced using helper phage bearing nonfunctional copies of the relevant coat protein gene (e.g., type 3 * +3 display). By far the most commonly used coat proteins for display are the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, with the major advantage of the former being higher copy number display (up to ∼15% of recombinant pVIII molecules in a hybrid virion, at least for short peptide fusions), and of the latter being the ability to display some folded proteins at an appreciable copy number (1-5 per phage particle). While pVIII display of folded proteins on hybrid phage is possible, it typically results in a copy number of much less than 1 per virion (Sidhu et al., 2000) . For the purposes of this review, we use the term "phage display" to refer to a recombinant filamentous phage displaying a single polypeptide sequence on its surface (or more rarely, bispecific display achieved via fusion of polypeptides to two different capsid proteins), and the term "phage-displayed library" to refer to a diverse pool of recombinant filamentous phage displaying an array of polypeptide variants (e.g., antibody fragments; peptides). Such libraries are typically screened by iterative cycles of panning against an immobilized protein of interest (e.g., antigen for phage-displayed antibody libraries; antibody for phage-displayed peptide libraries) followed by amplification of the bound phage in E. coli cells.
Early work with anti-phage antisera generated for species classification purposes demonstrated that the filamentous phage virion is highly immunogenic in the absence of adjuvants (Meynell and Lawn, 1968 ) and that only the major coat protein, pVIII, and the minor coat protein, pIII, are targeted by antibodies (Pratt et al., 1969; Woolford et al., 1977) . Thus, the idea of using the phage as carrier to elicit antibodies against poorly immunogenic haptens or polypeptide was a natural extension of the ability to display recombinant exogenous sequences on its surface, which was first demonstrated by de la Cruz et al. (1988) . The phage particle's low cost of production, high stability and potential for high valency display of foreign antigen (via pVIII display) also made it attractive as a vaccine carrier, especially during the early stages of development of recombinant protein technology.
Building upon existing peptide-carrier technology, the first filamentous phage-based vaccine immunogens displayed short amino acid sequences derived directly from proteins of interest as recombinant fusions to pVIII or pIII (de la Cruz et al., 1988) . As library technology was developed and refined, phage-based antigens displaying peptide ligands of monoclonal antibodies (selected from random peptide libraries using the antibody, thus simulating with varying degrees of success the antibody's folded epitope on its cognate antigen; Geysen et al., 1986; Knittelfelder et al., 2009) were also generated for immunization purposes, with the goal of eliciting anti-peptide antibodies that also recognize the native protein. Some of the pioneering work in this area used peptides derived from infectious disease antigens (or peptide ligands of antibodies against these antigens; Table 2) , including malaria and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). When displayed on phage, peptides encoding the repeat regions of the malarial circumsporozoite protein and merozoite surface protein 1 were immunogenic in mice and rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988; Greenwood et al., 1991; Willis et al., 1993; Demangel et al., 1996) , and antibodies raised against the latter cross-reacted with the full-length protein. Various peptide determinants (or mimics thereof) of HIV-1 gp120, gp41, gag, and reverse transcriptase were immunogenic when displayed on or conjugated to phage coat proteins (Minenkova et al., 1993; di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; De Berardinis et al., 1999; Scala et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2001; van Houten et al., 2006 van Houten et al., , 2010 , and in some cases elicited antibodies that were able to weakly neutralize lab-adapted viruses (di Marzo Veronese et al., 1994; Scala et al., 1999) . The list of animal and human infections for which phage-displayed peptide immunogens have been developed as vaccine leads continues to expand and includes bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic pathogens ( Table 2) . While in some cases the results of these studies have been promising, antibody epitope-based peptide vaccines are no longer an area of active research for several reasons: (i) in many cases, peptides incompletely or inadequately mimic epitopes on folded proteins (Irving et al., 2010 ; see below); (ii) antibodies against a single epitope may be of limited utility, especially for highly variable pathogens (Van Regenmortel, 2012); and (iii) for pathogens for which protective immune responses are generated efficiently during natural infection, peptide vaccines offer few advantages over recombinant subunit and live vector vaccines, which have become easier to produce over time.
More recently, peptide-displaying phage have been used in attempts to generate therapeutic antibody responses for chronic diseases, cancer, immunotherapy, and immunocontraception. Immunization with phage displaying Alzheimer's disease β-amyloid fibril peptides elicited anti-aggregating antibodies in mice and guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000 (Frenkel et al., , 2003 Esposito et al., 2008; Tanaka et al., 2011) , possibly reduced amyloid plaque formation in mice (Frenkel et al., 2003; Solomon, 2005; Esposito et al., 2008) , and may have helped maintain cognitive abilities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (Lavie et al., 2004) ; however, it remains unclear how such antibodies are proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier. Yip et al. (2001) found that antibodies raised in mice against an ERBB2/HER2 peptide could inhibit breast-cancer cell proliferation. Phage displaying peptide ligands of an anti-IgE antibody elicited antibodies that bound purified IgE molecules (Rudolf et al., 1998) , which may be useful in allergy immunotherapy. Several strategies for phage-based contraceptive vaccines have been proposed for control of animal populations. For example, immunization with phage displaying follicle-stimulating hormone peptides on pVIII elicited antibodies that impaired the fertility of mice and ewes (Abdennebi et al., 1999) . Phage displaying or chemically Rubinchik and Chow (2000) conjugated to sperm antigen peptides or peptide mimics (Samoylova et al., 2012a,b) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (Samoylov et al., 2012) are also in development.
For the most part, peptides displayed on phage elicit antibodies in experimental animals ( Table 2) , although this depends on characteristics of the peptide and the method of its display: pIII fusions tend toward lower immunogenicity than pVIII fusions (Greenwood et al., 1991) possibly due to copy number differences (pIII: 1-5 copies vs. pVIII: estimated at several hundred copies; Malik et al., 1996) . In fact, the phage is at least as immunogenic as traditional carrier proteins such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH; Melzer et al., 2003; Su et al., 2007) , and has comparatively few endogenous B-cell epitopes to divert the antibody response from its intended target (Henry et al., 2011) . Excepting small epitopes that can be accurately represented by a contiguous short amino acid sequence, however, it has been extremely difficult to elicit antibody responses that cross-react with native protein epitopes using peptides. The overall picture is considerably bleaker than that painted by Table 2 , since in several studies either: (i) peptide ligands selected from phage-displayed libraries were classified by the authors as mimics of discontinuous epitopes if they bore no obvious sequence homology to the native protein, which is weak evidence of non-linearity, or (ii) the evidence for cross-reactivity of antibodies elicited by immunization with phage-displayed peptides with native protein was uncompelling. Irving et al. (2010) describe at least one reason for this lack of success: it seems that peptide antigens elicit a set of topologically restricted antibodies that are largely unable to recognize discontinuous or complex epitopes on larger biomolecules. While the peptide may mimic the chemistry of a given epitope on a folded protein (allowing it to crossreact with a targeted antibody), being a smaller molecule, it cannot mimic the topology of that antibody's full epitope.
Despite this, the filamentous phage remains highly useful as a carrier for peptides with relatively simple secondary structures, which may be stablilized via anchoring to the coat proteins (Henry et al., 2011) . This may be especially true of peptides with poor inherent immunogenicity, which may be increased by high-valency display and phage-associated adjuvanticity (see Immunological Mechanisms of Vaccination with Filamentous Phage below).
The filamentous phage has been used to a lesser extent as a carrier for T-cell peptide epitopes, primarily as fusion proteins with pVIII ( Table 3) . Early work, showing that immunization with phage elicited T-cell help (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993) , was confirmed by several subsequent studies (De Berardinis et al., 1999; Ulivieri et al., 2008) . From the perspective of vaccination against infectious disease, De Berardinis et al. (2000) showed that a cytotoxic T-cell (CTL) epitope from HIV-1 reverse transcriptase could elicit antigen-specific CTLs in vitro and in vivo without addition of exogenous helper T-cell epitopes, presumably since these are already present in the phage coat proteins (Mascolo et al., 2007) . Similarly, efficient priming of CTLs was observed against phage-displayed T-cell epitopes from Hepatitis B virus (Wan et al., 2001) and Candida albicans (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2006 Wang et al., , 2014d , which, together with other types of immune responses, protected mice against systemic candidiasis. Vaccination with a combination of phagedisplayed peptides elicited antigen-specific CTLs that proved effective in reducing porcine cysticercosis in a randomized controlled trial (Manoutcharian et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2008) .
While the correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection for infectious diseases, where they are known, are almost exclusively serum or mucosal antibodies (Plotkin, 2010) ,
In certain vaccine applications, the filamentous phage has been used as a carrier for larger molecules that would be immunogenic even in isolation. Initially, the major advantages to phage display of such antigens were speed, ease of purification and low cost of production (Gram et al., 1993) . E. coli F17a-G adhesin (Van Gerven et al., 2008) , hepatitis B core antigen (Bahadir et al., 2011) , and hepatitis B surface antigen (Balcioglu et al., 2014) all elicited antibody responses when displayed on pIII, although none of these studies compared the immunogenicity of the phage-displayed proteins with that of the purified protein alone. Phage displaying Schistosoma mansoni glutathione S-transferase on pIII elicited an antibody response that was both higher in titer and of different isotypes compared to immunization with the protein alone (Rao et al., 2003) . Two studies of antiidiotypic vaccines have used the phage as a carrier for antibody fragments bearing immunogenic idiotypes. Immunization with phage displaying the 1E10 idiotype scFv (mimicking a Vibrio anguillarum surface epitope) elicited antibodies that protected flounder fish from Vibrio anguillarum challenge (Xia et al., 2005) . A chemically linked phage-BCL1 tumor-specific idiotype vaccine was weakly immunogenic in mice but extended survival time in a B-cell lymphoma model (Roehnisch et al., 2013) , and was welltolerated and immunogenic in patients with multiple myeloma (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . One study of DNA vaccination with an anti-laminarin scFv found that DNA encoding a pIII-scFv fusion protein elicited stronger humoral and cell-mediated immune responses than DNA encoding the scFv alone (Cuesta et al., 2006) , suggesting that under some circumstances, endogenous phage T-cell epitopes can enhance the immunogenicity of associated proteins. Taken together, the results of these studies show that as a particulate virus-like particle, the filamentous phage likely triggers different types of immune responses than recombinant protein antigens, and provide additional T-cell help to displayed or conjugated proteins. However, the low copy number of pIII-displayed proteins, as well as potentially unwanted phage-associated adjuvanticity, can make display of recombinant proteins by phage a suboptimal vaccine choice.
Although our understanding of the immune response against the filamentous phage pales in comparison to classical model antigens such as ovalbumin, recent work has begun to shed light on the immune mechanisms activated in response to phage vaccination (Figure 1) . The phage particle is immunogenic without adjuvant in all species tested to date, including mice (Willis et al., 1993) , rats (Dente et al., 1994) , rabbits (de la Cruz et al., 1988) , guinea pigs (Frenkel et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004) , fish (Coull et al., 1996; Xia et al., 2005) , non-human primates (Chen et al., 2001) , and humans (Roehnisch et al., 2014) . Various routes of immunization have been employed, including oral administration (Delmastro et al., 1997) as well as subcutaneous (Grabowska et al., 2000) , intraperitoneal (van Houten et al., 2006) , intramuscular (Samoylova et al., 2012a) , intravenous (Vaks and Benhar, 2011) , and intradermal injection (Roehnisch et al., 2013) ; no published study has directly compared the effect of administration route on filamentous phage immunogenicity. Antibodies are generated against only three major sites on the virion: (i) the surface-exposed N-terminal ∼12 residues of the pVIII monomer lattice (Terry et al., 1997; Kneissel et al., 1999) ; (ii) the N-terminal N1 and N2 domains of pIII (van Houten et al., 2010) ; and (iii) bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) embedded in the phage coat (Henry et al., 2011) . In mice, serum antibody titers against the phage typically reach 1:10 5 -1:10 6 after 2-3 immunizations, and are maintained for at least 1 year postimmunization (Frenkel et al., 2000) . Primary antibody responses against the phage appear to be composed of a mixture of IgM and IgG2b isotypes in C57BL/6 mice, while secondary antibody responses are composed primarily of IgG1 and IgG2b isotypes, with a lesser contribution of IgG2c and IgG3 isotypes (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) . Deletion of the surface-exposed N1 and N2 domains of pIII produces a truncated form of this protein that does not elicit antibodies, but also results in a non-infective phage particle with lower overall immunogenicity (van Houten et al., 2010) .
FIGURE 1 | Types of immune responses elicited in response to immunization with filamentous bacteriophage. As a virus-like particle, the filamentous phage engages multiple arms of the immune system, beginning with cellular effectors of innate immunity (macrophages, neutrophils, and possibly natural killer cells), which are recruited to tumor sites by phage displaying tumor-targeting moieties. The phage likely
activates T-cell independent antibody responses, either via phage-associated TLR ligands or cross-linking by the pVIII lattice. After processing by antigen-presenting cells, phage-derived peptides are presented on MHC class II and cross-presented on MHC class I, resulting in activation of short-lived CTLs and an array of helper T-cell types, which help prime memory CTL and high-affinity B-cell responses.
Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org
Although serum anti-phage antibody titers appear to be at least partially T-cell dependent (Kölsch et al., 1971; Willis et al., 1993; De Berardinis et al., 1999; van Houten et al., 2010) , many circulating pVIII-specific B cells in the blood are devoid of somatic mutation even after repeated biweekly immunizations, suggesting that under these conditions, the phage activates T-cell-independent B-cell responses in addition to highaffinity T-cell-dependent responses (Murira, 2014) . Filamentous phage particles can be processed by antigen-presenting cells and presented on MHC class II molecules (Gaubin et al., 2003; Ulivieri et al., 2008) and can activate T H 1, T H 2, and T H 17 helper T cells (Yang et al., 2005a; Wang et al., 2014d) . Anti-phage T H 2 responses were enhanced through display of CTLA-4 peptides fused to pIII (Kajihara et al., 2000) . Phage proteins can also be cross-presented on MHC class I molecules (Wan et al., 2005) and can prime two waves of CTL responses, consisting first of short-lived CTLs and later of long-lived memory CTLs that require CD4 + T-cell help (Del Pozzo et al., 2010) . The latter CTLs mediate a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (Fang et al., 2005; Del Pozzo et al., 2010) .
The phage particle is self-adjuvanting through multiple mechanisms. Host cell wall-derived LPS enhances the virion's immunogenicity, and its removal by polymyxin B chromatography reduces antibody titers against phage coat proteins (Grabowska et al., 2000) . The phage's singlestranded DNA genome contains CpG motifs and may also have an adjuvant effect. The antibody response against the phage is entirely dependent on MyD88 signaling and is modulated by stimulation of several Toll-like receptors (Hashiguchi et al., 2010) , indicating that innate immunity plays an important but largely uncharacterized role in the activation of anti-phage adaptive immune responses. Biodistribution studies of the phage after intravenous injection show that it is cleared from the blood within hours through the reticuloendothelial system (Molenaar et al., 2002) , particularly of the liver and spleen, where it is retained for days (Zou et al., 2004) , potentially activating marginal-zone B-cell responses. Thus, the filamentous phage is not only a highly immunogenic carrier, but by virtue of activating a range of innate and adaptive immune responses, serves as an excellent model virus-like particle antigen.
Long before the identification of filamentous phage, other types of bacteriophage were already being used for antibacterial therapy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (reviewed in Sulakvelidze et al., 2001) . The filamentous phage, with its nonlytic life cycle, has less obvious clinical uses, despite the fact that the host specificity of Inovirus and Plectrovirus includes many pathogens of medical importance, including Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Pseudomonas, Clostridium, and Mycoplasma species.
In an effort to enhance their bactericidal activity, genetically modified filamentous phage have been used as a "Trojan horse" to introduce various antibacterial agents into cells. M13 and Pf3 phage engineered to express either BglII restriction endonuclease (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) , lambda phage S holin (Hagens and Blasi, 2003) or a lethal catabolite gene activator protein (Moradpour et al., 2009) effectively killed E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells, respectively, with no concomitant release of LPS (Hagens and Blasi, 2003; Hagens et al., 2004) . Unfortunately, the rapid emergence of resistant bacteria with modified F pili represents a major and possibly insurmountable obstacle to this approach. However, there are some indications that filamentous phage can exert useful but more subtle effects upon their bacterial hosts that may not result in the development of resistance to infection. Several studies have reported increased antibiotic sensitivity in bacterial populations simultaneously infected with either wild type filamentous phage (Hagens et al., 2006) or phage engineered to repress the cellular SOS response (Lu and Collins, 2009) . Filamentous phage f1 infection inhibited early stage, but not mature, biofilm formation in E. coli (May et al., 2011) . Thus, unmodified filamentous phage may be of future interest as elements of combination therapeutics against certain drug-resistant infections.
More advanced therapeutic applications of the filamentous phage emerge when it is modified to express a targeting moiety specific for pathogenic cells and/or proteins for the treatment of infectious diseases, cancer and autoimmunity (Figure 2) . The first work in this area showed as proof-of-concept that phage encoding a GFP expression cassette and displaying a HER2specific scFv on all copies of pIII were internalized into breast tumor cells, resulting in GFP expression (Poul and Marks, 1999) . M13 or fd phage displaying either a targeting peptide or antibody fragment and tethered to chloramphenicol by a labile crosslinker were more potent inhibitors of Staphylococcus aureus growth than high-concentration free chloramphenicol (Yacoby et al., 2006; Vaks and Benhar, 2011) . M13 phage loaded with doxorubicin and displaying a targeting peptide on pIII specifically killed prostate cancer cells in vitro (Ghosh et al., 2012a) . Tumorspecific peptide:pVIII fusion proteins selected from "landscape" phage (Romanov et al., 2001; Abbineni et al., 2010; Fagbohun et al., 2012 Fagbohun et al., , 2013 Lang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014a) were able to target and deliver siRNA-, paclitaxel-, and doxorubicincontaining liposomes to tumor cells (Jayanna et al., 2010a; Wang et al., 2010a Wang et al., ,b,c, 2014b Bedi et al., 2011 Bedi et al., , 2013 Bedi et al., , 2014 ; they were non-toxic and increased tumor remission rates in mouse models (Jayanna et al., 2010b; Wang et al., 2014b,c) . Using the B16-OVA tumor model, Eriksson et al. (2007) showed that phage displaying peptides and/or Fabs specific for tumor antigens delayed tumor growth and improved survival, owing in large part to activation of tumor-associated macrophages and recruitment of neutrophils to the tumor site (Eriksson et al., 2009) . Phage displaying an scFv against β-amyloid fibrils showed promise as a diagnostic (Frenkel and Solomon, 2002) and therapeutic (Solomon, 2008) reagent for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease due to the unanticipated ability of the phage to penetrate into brain tissue (Ksendzovsky et al., 2012) . Similarly, phage displaying an immunodominant peptide epitope derived from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein depleted pathogenic demyelinating antibodies in brain tissue in the murine experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model of multiple sclerosis (Rakover et al., 2010) . The advantages of the filamentous phage in this context over traditional antibody-drug or protein-peptide conjugates are (i) its ability to carry very high amounts of drug or peptide, and (ii) its ability to access anatomical compartments that cannot generally be reached by systemic administration of a protein.
Unlike most therapeutic biologics, the filamentous phage's production in bacteria complicates its use in humans in several ways. First and foremost, crude preparations of filamentous phage typically contain very high levels of contaminating LPS, in the range of ∼10 2 -10 4 endotoxin units (EU)/mL (Boratynski et al., 2004; Branston et al., 2015) , which have the potential to cause severe adverse reactions. LPS is not completely removed by polyethylene glycol precipitation or cesium chloride density gradient centrifugation (Smith and Gingrich, 2005; Branston et al., 2015) , but its levels can be reduced dramatically using additional purification steps such as size exclusion chromatography (Boratynski et al., 2004; Zakharova et al., 2005) , polymyxin B chromatography (Grabowska et al., 2000) , and treatment with detergents such as Triton X-100 or Triton X-114 (Roehnisch et al., 2014; Branston et al., 2015) . These strategies routinely achieve endotoxin levels of <1 EU/mL as measured by the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, well below the FDA limit for parenteral administration of 5 EU/kg body weight/dose, although concerns remain regarding the presence of residual virion-associated LPS which may be undetectable. A second and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the filamentous phage's bacterial production is inherent heterogeneity of particle size and the spectrum of host cellderived virion-associated and soluble contaminants, which may be cause for safety concerns and restrict its use to high-risk groups.
Many types of bacteriophage and engineered phage variants, including filamentous phage, have been proposed for prophylactic use ex vivo in food safety, either in the production pipeline (reviewed in Dalmasso et al., 2014) or for detection of foodborne pathogens post-production (reviewed in Schmelcher and Loessner, 2014) . Filamentous phage displaying a tetracysteine tag on pIII were used to detect E. coli cells through staining with biarsenical dye . M13 phage functionalized with metallic silver were highly bactericidal against E. coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis . Biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (Nanduri et al., 2007) , piezoelectric transducers (Olsen et al., 2006) , linear dichroism (Pacheco-Gomez et al., 2012) , and magnetoelastic sensor technology (Lakshmanan et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009) were devised using filamentous phage displaying scFv or conjugated to whole IgG against E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Bacillus anthracis with limits of detection on the order of 10 2 -10 6 bacterial cells/mL. Proof of concept has been demonstrated for use of such phage-based biosensors to detect bacterial contamination of live produce (Li et al., 2010b) and eggs (Chai et al., 2012) .
The filamentous phage particle is enclosed by a rod-like protein capsid, ∼1000 nm long and 5 nm wide, made up almost entirely of overlapping pVIII monomers, each of which lies ∼27 angstroms from its nearest neighbor and exposes two amine groups as well as at least three carboxyl groups (Henry et al., 2011) . The regularity of the phage pVIII lattice and its diversity of chemically addressable groups make it an ideal scaffold for bioconjugation (Figure 3) . The most commonly used approach is functionalization of amine groups with NHS esters (van Houten et al., 2006 (van Houten et al., , 2010 Yacoby et al., 2006) , although this can result in unwanted acylation of pIII and any displayed biomolecules. Carboxyl groups and tyrosine residues can also be functionalized using carbodiimide coupling and diazonium coupling, respectively (Li et al., 2010a) . Carrico et al. (2012) developed methods to specifically label pVIII N-termini without modification of exposed lysine residues through a two-step transamination-oxime formation reaction. Specific modification of phage coat proteins is even more easily accomplished using genetically modified phage displaying peptides (Ng et al., 2012) or enzymes (Chen et al., 2007; Hess et al., 2012) , but this can be cumbersome and is less general in application.
For more than a decade, interest in the filamentous phage as a building block for nanomaterials has been growing because of its unique physicochemical properties, with emerging applications in magnetics, optics, and electronics. It has long been known that above a certain concentration threshold, phage can form ordered crystalline suspensions (Welsh et al., 1996) . Lee et al. (2002) engineered M13 phage to display a ZnS-binding peptide on pIII and showed that, in the presence of ZnS nanoparticles, they selfassemble into highly ordered film biomaterials that can be aligned using magnetic fields. Taking advantage of the ability to display substrate-specific peptides at known locations on the phage filament Hess et al., 2012) , this pioneering FIGURE 3 | Chemically addressable groups of the filamentous bacteriophage major coat protein lattice. The filamentous phage virion is made up of ∼2,500-4,000 overlapping copies of the 50-residue major coat protein, pVIII, arranged in a shingle-type lattice. Each monomer has an array of chemically addressable groups available for bioorthogonal conjugation, including two primary amine groups (shown in red), three carboxyl groups (show in blue) and two hydroxyl groups (show in green). The 12 N-terminal residues generally exposed to the immune system for antibody binding are in bold underline. Figure adapted from structural data of Marvin, 1990 , freely available in PDB and SCOPe databases.
work became the basis for construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) . Using hybrid M13 phage displaying Co 3 O 4 -and gold-binding peptides on pVIII as a scaffold to assemble nanowires on polyelectrolyte multilayers, Nam et al. (2006) produced a thin, flexible lithium ion battery, which could be stamped onto platinum microband current collectors (Nam et al., 2008) . The electrochemical properties of such batteries were further improved through pIII-display of single-walled carbon nanotube-binding peptides (Lee et al., 2009) , offering an approach for sustainable production of nanostructured electrodes from poorly conductive starting materials. Phagebased nanomaterials have found applications in cancer imaging (Ghosh et al., 2012b; Yi et al., 2012) , photocatalytic water splitting (Nam et al., 2010a; Neltner et al., 2010) , light harvesting (Nam et al., 2010b; Chen et al., 2013) , photoresponsive technologies (Murugesan et al., 2013) , neural electrodes (Kim et al., 2014) , and piezoelectric energy generation (Murugesan et al., 2013) .
Thus, the unique physicochemical properties of the phage, in combination with modular display of peptides and proteins with known binding specificity, have spawned wholly novel materials with diverse applications. It is worth noting that the unusual biophysical properties of the filamentous phage can also be exploited in the study of structures of other macromolecules. Magnetic alignment of high-concentration filamentous phage in solution can partially order DNA, RNA, proteins, and other biomolecules for measurement of dipolar coupling interactions (Hansen et al., 1998 (Hansen et al., , 2000 Dahlke Ojennus et al., 1999) in NMR spectroscopy.
Because of their large population sizes, short generation times, small genome sizes and ease of manipulation, various filamentous and non-filamentous bacteriophages have been used as models of experimental evolution (reviewed in Husimi, 1989; Wichman and Brown, 2010; Kawecki et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2013) . The filamentous phage has additional practical uses in protein engineering and directed protein evolution, due to its unique tolerance of genetic modifications that allow biomolecules to be displayed on the virion surface. First and foremost among these applications is in vitro affinity maturation of antibody fragments displayed on pIII. Libraries of variant Fabs and single chain antibodies can be generated via random or sitedirected mutagenesis and selected on the basis of improved or altered binding, roughly mimicking the somatic evolution strategy of the immune system (Marks et al., 1992; Bradbury et al., 2011) . However, other in vitro display systems, such as yeast display, have important advantages over the filamentous phage for affinity maturation (although each display technology has complementary strengths; Koide and Koide, 2012) , and regardless of the display method, selection of "improved" variants can be slow and cumbersome. Iterative methods have been developed to combine computationally designed mutations (Lippow et al., 2007) and circumvent the screening of combinatorial libraries, but these have had limited success to date.
Recently, Esvelt et al. (2011) developed a novel strategy for directed evolution of filamentous phage-displayed proteins, called phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE), which allows multiple rounds of evolution per day with little experimental intervention. The authors engineered M13 phage to encode an exogenous protein (the subject for directed evolution), whose functional activity triggers gene III expression from an accessory plasmid; variants of the exogenous protein arise by random mutagenesis during phage replication, the rate of which can be increased by inducible expression of error-prone DNA polymerases. By supplying limiting amounts of receptive E. coli cells to the engineered phage variants, Esvelt et al. (2011) elegantly linked phage infectivity and production of offspring with the presence of a desired protein phenotype. Carlson et al. (2014) later showed that PACE selection stringency could be modulated by providing small amounts of pIII independently of protein phenotype, and undesirable protein functions negatively selected by linking them to expression of a truncated pIII variant that impairs infectivity in a dominant negative fashion. PACE is currently limited to protein functions that can be linked in some way to the expression of a gene III reporter, such as protein-protein interaction, recombination, DNA or RNA binding, and enzymatic catalysis (Meyer and Ellington, 2011) . This approach represents a promising avenue for both basic research in molecular evolution (Dickinson et al., 2013) and synthetic biology, including antibody engineering.
Filamentous bacteriophage have been recovered from diverse environmental sources, including soil (Murugaiyan et al., 2011) , coastal fresh water (Xue et al., 2012) , alpine lakes (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) and deep sea bacteria (Jian et al., 2012) , but not, perhaps surprisingly, the human gut (Kim et al., 2011) . The environmental "phageome" in soil and water represent the largest source of replicating DNA on the planet, and is estimated to contain upward of 10 30 viral particles (Ashelford et al., 2003; Chibani-Chennoufi et al., 2004; Suttle, 2005) . The few studies attempting to investigate filamentous phage environmental ecology using classical environmental microbiology techniques (typically direct observation by electron microscopy) found that filamentous phage made up anywhere from 0 to 100% of all viral particles (Demuth et al., 1993; Pina et al., 1998; Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . There was some evidence of seasonal fluctuation of filamentous phage populations in tandem with the relative abundance of free-living heterotrophic bacteria (Hofer and Sommaruga, 2001) . Environmental metagenomics efforts are just beginning to unravel the composition of viral ecosystems. The existing data suggest that filamentous phage comprise minor constituents of viral communities in freshwater (Roux et al., 2012) and reclaimed and potable water (Rosario et al., 2009) but have much higher frequencies in wastewater and sewage (Cantalupo et al., 2011; Alhamlan et al., 2013) , with the caveat that biases inherent to the methodologies for ascertaining these data (purification of viral particles, sequencing biases) have not been not well validated. There are no data describing the population dynamics of filamentous phage and their host species in the natural environment.
At the individual virus-bacterium level, it is clear that filamentous phage can modulate host phenotype, including the virulence of important human and crop pathogens. This can occur either through direct effects of phage replication on cell growth and physiology, or, more typically, by horizontal transfer of genetic material contained within episomes and/or chromosomally integrated prophage. Temperate filamentous phage may also play a role in genome evolution (reviewed in Canchaya et al., 2003) . Perhaps the best-studied example of virulence modulation by filamentous phage is that of Vibrio cholerae, whose full virulence requires lysogenic conversion by the cholera toxin-encoding CTXφ phage (Waldor and Mekalanos, 1996) . Integration of CTXφ phage occurs at specific sites in the genome; these sequences are introduced through the combined action of another filamentous phage, fs2φ, and a satellite filamentous phage, TLC-Knφ1 (Hassan et al., 2010) . Thus, filamentous phage species interact and coevolve with each other in addition to their hosts. Infection by filamentous phage has been implicated in the virulence of Yersinia pestis (Derbise et al., 2007) , Neisseria meningitidis (Bille et al., 2005 (Bille et al., , 2008 , Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Iida et al., 2001) , E. coli 018:K1:H7 (Gonzalez et al., 2002) , Xanthomonas campestris (Kamiunten and Wakimoto, 1982) , and P. aeruginosa (Webb et al., 2004) , although in most of these cases, the specific mechanisms modulating virulence are unclear. Phage infection can both enhance or repress virulence depending on the characteristics of the phage, the host bacterium, and the environmental milieu, as is the case for the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum (Yamada, 2013) . Since infection results in downregulation of the pili used for viral entry, filamentous phage treatment has been proposed as a hypothetical means of inhibiting bacterial conjugation and horizontal gene transfer, so as to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance genes (Lin et al., 2011) .
Finally, the filamentous phage may also play a future role in the preservation of biodiversity of other organisms in at-risk ecosystems. Engineered phage have been proposed for use in bioremediation, either displaying antibody fragments of desired specificity for filtration of toxins and environmental contaminants (Petrenko and Makowski, 1993) , or as biodegradable polymers displaying peptides selected for their ability to aggregate pollutants, such as oil sands tailings (Curtis et al., 2011 (Curtis et al., , 2013 . Engineered phage displaying peptides that specifically bind inorganic materials have also been proposed for use in more advanced and less intrusive mineral separation technologies (Curtis et al., 2009 ).
The filamentous phage represents a highly versatile organism whose uses extend far beyond traditional phage display and affinity selection of antibodies and polypeptides of desired specificity. Its high immunogenicity and ability to display a variety of surface antigens make the phage an excellent particulate vaccine carrier, although its bacterial production and preparation heterogeneity likely limits its applications in human vaccines at present, despite being apparently safe and well-tolerated in animals and people. Unanticipated characteristics of the phage particle, such as crossing of the blood-brain barrier and formation of highly ordered liquid crystalline phases, have opened up entirely new avenues of research in therapeutics for chronic disease and the design of nanomaterials. Our comparatively detailed understanding of the interactions of model filamentous phage with their bacterial hosts has allowed researchers to harness the phage life cycle to direct protein evolution in the lab. Hopefully, deeper knowledge of phage-host interactions at an ecological level may produce novel strategies to control bacterial pathogenesis. While novel applications of the filamentous phage continue to be developed, the phage is likely to retain its position as a workhorse for therapeutic antibody discovery for many years to come, even with the advent of competing technologies.
KH and JS conceived and wrote the manuscript. MA-G read the manuscript and commented on the text. | What demonstrate the potential of phage in applications for nanomaterials? | 1,766 | construction of two-and threedimensional nanomaterials with more advanced architectures, including semiconducting nanowires (Mao et al., 2003 (Mao et al., , 2004 , nanoparticles , and nanocomposites (Oh et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014) | 36,246 |
1,666 | Nanopore sequencing as a revolutionary diagnostic tool for porcine viral enteric disease complexes identifies porcine kobuvirus as an important enteric virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026206/
SHA: eff8bed68ef6109e8f0c51a8b1ec4b6ca5b6329e
Authors: Theuns, Sebastiaan; Vanmechelen, Bert; Bernaert, Quinten; Deboutte, Ward; Vandenhole, Marilou; Beller, Leen; Matthijnssens, Jelle; Maes, Piet; Nauwynck, Hans J.
Date: 2018-06-29
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9
License: cc-by
Abstract: Enteric diseases in swine are often caused by different pathogens and thus metagenomics are a useful tool for diagnostics. The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics were investigated here. First, cell culture-grown porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and rotavirus A were pooled and sequenced on a MinION. Reads were already detected at 7 seconds after start of sequencing, resulting in high sequencing depths (19.2 to 103.5X) after 3 h. Next, diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet was analyzed. Almost all reads (99%) belonged to bacteriophages, which may have reshaped the piglet’s microbiome. Contigs matched Bacteroides, Escherichia and Enterococcus phages. Moreover, porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the feces for the first time in Belgium. Suckling piglets shed kobuvirus from one week of age, but an association between peak of viral shedding (10(6.42)–10(7.01) copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed during a follow-up study. Retrospective analysis showed the widespread (n = 25, 56.8% positive) of genetically moderately related kobuviruses among Belgian diarrheic piglets. MinION enables rapid detection of enteric viruses. Such new methodologies will change diagnostics, but more extensive validations should be conducted. The true enteric pathogenicity of porcine kobuvirus should be questioned, while its subclinical importance cannot be excluded.
Text: metagenomics is a valuable asset for diagnostics in pigs, leading to discovery of novel viruses and identification of porcine viral enteric disease complexes. Although standardized procedures have been developed to study viral metagenomes in fecal samples, they still require an extensive sample preparation, including random or targeted pre-amplification of viral genomes present in the sample 13 . Most sequencing platforms still require capital investments and high sample turnover rates to be cost-effective. Performing the necessary analyses often results in long time periods between sample arrival and diagnostic reporting, since results can only be processed after finishing the sequencing run. Third-generation sequencing using MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ONT) might be a useful and affordable diagnostic tool for swine veterinary medicine as it allows rapid sample preparation and real-time sequence analysis. The flowcells used for sequencing consist of a membrane containing multiple CsgG nanopore proteins from Escherichia coli 14 . An ion current is established through this pore resulting in typical current changes upon passage of specific nucleotides. This signal is converted into a nucleotide sequence by computational algorithms (basecalling). Since the release of MinION technology, major advances have been made in terms of the number and the quality of reads generated 15 . In the field of virology, the technology has mainly been applied in human medicine. Using nanopore sequencing, it was possible to distinguish three poxviruses with 98% nucleotide similarity at strain level 16 . MinION has also been used as a diagnostic tool during recent Ebolavirus outbreaks in West Africa, allowing fast on-site characterization of circulating strains 17, 18 . Coupled to a laptop-based bioinformatics workflow, MinION was able to detect Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus and hepatitis C virus in less than 6 hours using earlier versions of the technology 19 . A multiplex PCR method for complete on-site Zikavirus genome sequencing in samples with low viral loads has recently been developed by Quick and coworkers 20 . Partial dengue virus genomes were isothermally amplified followed by sequencing, allowing classification of strains in serotypes 21 . In veterinary virology, the use of nanopore sequencing is growing. A novel species of papillomavirus was identified in warts from giraffes, using rolling-circle amplification and nanopore sequencing 22 . The entire genome of a parapoxvirus isolated from a seal was obtained by combining data from Illumina next-generation sequencing with nanopore sequencing data 23 . One study has reported the detection of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from unamplified cDNA created from poly-A tailed RNA using cell culture grown viruses 24 . To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first using MinION as an aid in porcine health management. This study was aimed to explore the possibilities of MinION as a rapid and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in pig health management for diagnosis of viral enteric disease complexes. The ability to detect high loads of cell culture-grown rotavirus and coronavirus, mimicking shedding quantities observed in diarrheic piglets, was evaluated. In a second case, the ability to detect (novel) viruses in diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet with diarrhea was investigated. No gene-specific or random pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids was conducted to challenge the MinION's sensitivity. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the latter case and a longitudinal field study was conducted hereafter to elucidate the shedding patterns of this virus. Moreover, archival (2014) fecal samples from diarrheic suckling piglets less than two weeks old were investigated for the presence of kobuviruses, to study their epidemiology in Belgium.
be performed for 243,313 reads with a mean length of 740 nucleotides. Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were filtered out, resulting in 179,015 remaining sequences (mean length 816 nt) for use in downstream analyses. Results of the sequencing run, including taxonomical classification and mapping of reads against PEDV and rotavirus A (RVA) reference genomes are shown in Fig. 1A . After 24 hours of sequencing, a total of 15,232 reads were classified as viral by sensitive tBLASTx comparison against a complete viral database. Of these, 39.3% (n = 5,985) and 10.3% (n = 1,564) were assigned to viral families comprising Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (family Coronaviridae) and Rotavirus (family Reoviridae, subfamily Sedoreovirinae), respectively. A fraction of the reads (29.3%, n = 4,468) were assigned to order Caudovirales. These reads originated from the lambda phage DNA used in a previous control run on the same flowcell. At 7.5 and 24.2 seconds after the start of sequencing, respectively, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were translocated through a nanopore. Most reads were generated in the first twelve hours of sequencing and read accumulation was most exponential in the first three hours of sequencing (Fig. 1B) . PEDV and RVA sequences were extracted from the dataset and mapped against viral reference genes to calculate sequencing depths over time (Fig. 1C) . After one hour, sequencing depths were higher for PEDV (43.0X) than for RVA (4.9 to 22.1X). High sequencing depths were acquired after three hours of sequencing for PEDV (103.5X) and for most RVA gene segments (19.2 to 48.2X).
De novo assembly was executed on the quality-filtered reads prior to identification (tBLASTx) to recover viral genomes. This resulted in the recovery of the almost complete PEDV genome and RVA gene segments with identities varying between 95 and 99% compared to the reference genes (Table 1) . Higher assembly accuracies (97 to 99%) were obtained when only the reads matching against rotavirus and PEDV were included for de novo assembly (Table 1) . However, execution of de novo assembly prior to taxonomical classification (tBLASTx) reduced the time to identify entire viral genomes in the dataset.
Virome composition of a young diarrheic piglet using nanopore sequencing. A total of 30,088 reads were generated by sequencing the diarrheic fecal sample for three hours. Of these, 25,466 reads (q-score >7, mean read length 653 nt) were used for further analyses. Different methods were used to compare the reads against a viral database using the HPC cluster of Ghent University and results are shown in Fig. 2 . Comparison against a complete viral database resulted in the detection of 6,781 to 8,677 potential viral reads, depending on the BLAST settings. BLASTn resulted in rapid taxonomical identification of reads at almost similar sensitivity compared to tBLASTx. However, there was a very high difference between wall times on the HPC cluster, with only 26 seconds of analysis time for BLASTn, versus almost 24 hours for tBLASTx. The majority of sequences were assigned to bacteriophages within the order Caudovirales and families Siphoviridae (n = 3,213 to 4,163 reads), Podoviridae (n = 2,506 to 3,002 reads) and Myoviridae (n = 912 to 1,202 reads). A de novo assembly was executed on the basecalled, quality filtered reads and the resulting contigs were used as input material for VirSorter analysis. Nineteen contigs were classified as sure (n = 4; category 1), somewhat sure (=14; category 2) and not so sure (=1; category 3) to be phage-like contigs (Fig. 2B) . Comparison of these contigs against the GenBank database using BLAST allowed classification into four different groups. Ten contigs showed moderate to high nucleotide similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, suggesting that they all belonged to one phage genome. This was also supported by the fact that all these contigs mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Bacteroides phage B124-14 (data not shown). The longest contig with a size of 39,069 nucleotides, together with four other contigs showed similarities (95% nt identity) to different Escherichia phages. As they also mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Escherichia phage vB_EcoP_PhAPEC7, it seems that they must also belong to one phage genome (data not shown). Two contigs showed poor similarity to both the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME_196, isolated from hospital sewage in China from an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and the Enterococcus hirae bacterial genome. The latter might be a prophage inserted in the bacterial genome. Interestingly, three contigs were identified for which no similarities were found with existing viruses in GenBank, but contig 0105 mapped to the reference genome of the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME196 (data not shown). These might be novel phages or divergent variants from existing phages present in GenBank.
Three eukaryotic porcine viruses, porcine kobuvirus (n = 18 to 22 reads), enterovirus G (n = 5 to 9 reads) and astrovirus (n = 4 reads) were found at much lower abundancies. The genera Kobuvirus and Enterovirus belong to the family Picornaviridae, whereas the genus Mamastrovirus belongs to the family Astroviridae. Kobuvirus reads were mapped against a European reference strain S-1/HUN/2007/Hungary, as shown in Fig. 2C . However, full-genome coverage at high sequencing depth was not obtained.
Shedding of porcine kobuvirus and rotaviruses in suckling piglets. The shedding of porcine kobuvirus, RVA and rotavirus C (RVC) was quantitatively investigated in 5 suckling pigs of the same farm from which the diarrheic feces originated. The fecal shedding patterns of the different viruses and presence of diarrheic signs are shown in Fig. 3A . All piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus at the end of the first week after parturition. In two piglets (A and D) the shedding was sustained and lasted for at least 2 weeks (above the limit of quantification). Peak shedding titers of the porcine kobuvirus varied between 6.42 and 7.01 log 10 copies/swab, which is generally lower than peak shedding observed for typical enteric viruses such as rotavirus and PEDV. Moreover, the peak of shedding was not related to diarrheic episodes, questioning the role of this virus in the pathogenesis of diarrhea on the farm. Diarrheic signs were only noticed in two piglets (A and B). In piglet B, an association between high RVC shedding and diarrheic episodes was observed. In contrast, there was no direct association between peak shedding of kobuvirus and diarrheic episodes. Interestingly, a peak in kobuvirus shedding was observed in piglet C at day 11 post-farrowing. This animal died shortly hereafter, but it was unclear if this can be attributable to the kobuvirus infection. Acute RVA shedding was observed at the end of the suckling period in three of five piglets, even though all sows were vaccinated before farrowing using a bovine inactivated rotavirus vaccine.
Retrospective analysis of porcine kobuviruses shedding in Belgian diarrheic suckling pigs and phylogenetic analysis. A total of 44 diarrheic fecal samples collected in 2014 were screened for the presence of kobuvirus using the new RT-qPCR. Of these, 25 samples (56.8%) tested positive and 18 samples showed quantifiable viral loads (4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/swab). Seven samples were positive, but viral loads were too low to allow accurate quantification. The presence of RVA and RVC had been quantitatively assessed in these samples in a previous study and the occurrence of co-infections between rotaviruses and kobuvirus is shown in Fig. 3B 25 . Kobuvirus was found in equal ratios in rotavirus-negative and -positive samples. Twelve samples contained a single rotavirus infection with a high RVA load and in four of these, a high kobuvirus load (5.16 to 5.42 log 10 copies/g) was observed. A single RVC infection was found in seven samples and in four of these tested positive for kobuvirus at high loads (4.31 to 5.59 log 10 copies/g). A dual RVA/RVC infection was seen in two samples, but neither contained quantifiable kobuvirus loads. Many (n = 10) of the rotavirus-negative samples contained high kobuvirus loads.
Strain 17V079 showed high similarity to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates from 2014 (92.1 to 94.0% nucleotide sequence identity) and the Hungarian reference strain S-1/Hun/2017 (93.4%). Furthermore, there was a high level of genetic variability between the 2014 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates, with nucleotide sequence identities ranging between 90.1 and 97.2%. A phylogenetic analysis, using the 3D gene of 17V079 and twelve Belgian isolates from 2014 ( Fig. 3C) , shows the Belgian strains clustering between strains from different geographical locations.
Prevention and treatment of enteric disease problems in young piglets is frequently hampered by a lack of diagnostic tools. Veterinarians are restricted to a short list of known viruses, bacteria, parasites and management factors to define a differential diagnosis. Only the most likely cause(s) of the disease will be diagnostically investigated, often leading to negative, inconclusive or incomplete results. However, metagenomics studies have indicated the existence of viral enteric disease complexes, potentially involving multiple known and novel viruses 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 . Detection of nucleic acids from pathogens using NGS-based metagenomics approaches is a partial solution to diagnostic testing problems and can provide a complete readout of viruses and other pathogens present in a sample. However, most NGS platforms require large investments and processing of the reads can only start at the end of the sequencing run. Viral metagenomics also requires extensive laboratory preparations, including centrifugation, filtration and nuclease treatment to discard bacterial and host nucleic acids that make up to the bulk of all nucleic acids present 13 . Furthermore, the amount of viral nucleic acids in a sample is very low, requiring targeted or random amplification of these genomes before NGS analysis. Amplification may induce bias and hampers the development of a fast diagnostic pipelines due to considerable time loss. All these factors lead to a long turnover time between sample collection and diagnostic reporting. The third-generation sequencing device MinION (ONT), holds promise as a diagnostic platform, as it allows real-time sequencing and analyses of all DNA/RNA in a sample, theoretically without needing pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate this technology for use as a rapid tool for porcine viral enteric disease complex identification, without the conduction of viral nucleic acid amplification. In a first experiment, cell culture-grown PEDV and RVA, known to induce diarrhea in young pigs, were pooled at high loads mimicking shedding quantities in diarrheic piglets. Sequencing of this pooled sample with the MinION resulted in rapid identification of both viruses. Real-time analysis of the sequencing reads was not conducted, but is achievable as previously demonstrated by Greninger and colleagues using the SURPI analysis pipeline for rapid identification of human viruses from different clinical matrices 19 . Interestingly, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were generated respectively after 7 and 24 seconds of sequencing. High sequencing depths (43.0X) were acquired within one hour of sequencing for PEDV and within three hours for most of the eleven RVA gene segments (19.2-48.2X). Overall, higher sequencing depths were generated for PEDV that could indicate that sequencing of longer viral genomes is favored over smaller gene segments, as PEDV has a genome size of approximately 28 kb, and RVA gene segments are shorter (0.6 to 3.3 kb). This bias might have been introduced during the ligation of the sequencing adapters to the viral nucleic acids. It can be hypothesized that adapters are more easily attached to longer DNA fragments, and bias should be avoided by standardization of viral nucleic acid input length. Rapid read generation allows flexible use of the sequencing platform and sequences can be read until enough genome information of the viruses of interest is available. While the technology can be useful for giving fast readouts of viruses (<3 hours) present in a sample, thorough validation, using well-defined virus stocks, spiking experiments in matrices (e.g. feces) and real clinical samples is necessary to make sure that all members of the porcine viral enteric disease complex are accurately being diagnosed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the technology needs further improvement, as error rates of contigs from de novo assemblies still ranged between 1 and 5%, hindering the precise analysis of subtle but important mutations in the viral genome.
After the successful identification of the cell culture-grown viruses, the performance of the MinION was further explored by analyzing a diarrheic fecal sample of a one-week-old suckling piglet. Real-time PCR analyses were conducted for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV. Enterococcus hirae was isolated at a private diagnostic laboratory, but this bacterial species is not considered a typical cause of diarrheic disease in pigs 26 . Viral metagenomics was conducted on this sample using the MinION and two different BLAST search algorithms were used to taxonomically identify the reads by comparing them against a complete viral database. Overall, tBLASTx with an e-value of 10 −3 was able to identify the most viral reads compared to other search options conducted. However, BLASTn search options also reached high sensitivity, but at much lower time cost: 26 seconds instead of almost 24 hours. For rapid read analysis and searching for closely related non-divergent viral sequences, BLASTn or another fast methodology should thus be preferentially used. However, tBLASTx might pick up more divergent or novel viruses, improving overall sensitivity.
Three porcine viruses, including porcine kobuvirus, porcine mamastrovirus and enterovirus G, were identified in sample 17V079. Astro-and enteroviruses have been detected earlier in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic feces of Belgian pigs and in feces from pigs around the globe 9,10,27 . In a recent study from Thailand, the difference in prevalence of astrovirus in diarrheic (8.4%) versus non-diarrheic (4.6%) piglets less than 4-weeks-old was not statistically significant. Also other studies have shown that the role of porcine astrovirus in the pathogenesis of pig diarrhea is not completely clear 28 . In contrast, associations between diarrhea and human astrovirus infections have been made 29 . A recent study in 5 European countries (Hungary, Spain, Germany, Austria and Sweden) have indicated the widespread of porcine astroviruses in the swine population. A one hundred procent prevalence of astrovirus was found in diarrheic and non-diarrheic pigs from Austria and Spain. Porcine astroviruses have recently also been linked to outbreaks of neurological disorders in weaned piglets from Hungary, and in 5-week-old pigs and sows in the United States 30, 31 . The gut might be a hypothetical entry port for such neurological astrovirus infections.
Enteroviruses have been more generally linked to neurological disorders in pigs, although they are commonly found in feces as well 11, 12, [32] [33] [34] . In a study from Vietnam, no significant correlation was found between diarrhea status and presence of enterovirus G in feces 35 . The involvement of both astro-and enteroviruses in the pathogenesis of enteric disorders might be questioned here, but cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, while sensitive tBLASTx searches were used here, there is still a possibility that a completely novel virus might be present in the dark matter of the sequencing reads. However, reporting of a porcine kobuvirus in Belgian piglets with MinION is unique. In Belgium, kobuviruses had previously only been found in diarrheic samples of calves and young cattle in Belgium 36 . In the present study, a novel RT-qPCR assay, targeting the conserved 3D gene encoding the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, was developed and used to assess, for the first time, longitudinal quantitative shedding kinetics of porcine kobuvirus in pigs under field conditions. Similar kinetics were also analyzed for porcine rotavirus A and C. While suckling piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus from one week of age, an association between peak viral shedding (6.42 to 7.01 log 10 copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed. In one pig, an association was made between diarrheic episodes and the peak of rotavirus C shedding, a well-known enteric pathogen 37, 38 . Very interestingly, kobuvirus fecal loads were typically lower than those reported of well-described enteric viruses of which the pathogenicity has been proven using piglet infection models, such as PEDV and rotavirus [39] [40] [41] . Similar viral loads for porcine kobuvirus were also found in case (4.60 ± 1.76 copies/qPCR reaction) and control pigs (4.79 ± 1.72 copies/qPCR reaction) during a recent Danish study to evaluate the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of the new neonatal porcine diarrhea syndrome. The study demonstrated that kobuvirus, astrovirus, rotavirus A, porcine teschovirus, porcine norovirus and porcine coronaviruses were not involved in the pathogenesis of the syndrome 42 . The finding of low kobuvirus loads in feces casts doubt over the true enteric pathogenic tropism of the virus. Hypothetically, its replication is likely not distributed across the whole villus but limited to either enterocytes at the villus' tips or to immune cells present in the gut. The presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum has also been demonstrated in Hungarian pigs, but it was not known if the virus is also replicating in other organs 43 . Both the oro-fecal route and the feeding of milk to sucklings pigs could be involved in virus transmission. Highest rates of infection were observed in suckling piglets, compared to older pigs, in other countries [44] [45] [46] . In our study, relatively long shedding of porcine kobuvirus was observed in three out of five animals, which may indicate that this virus may induce persistent infections. A 2011 Brazilian study demonstrated the presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum from 3-day-old piglets, which had disappeared by day 21, indicating viral clearance from the blood and excluding systemic persistence 45 . A complete lack of pathogenicity cannot be excluded, as porcine kobuviruses might play a role as a subclinically important virus. Such subclinical, yet immunosuppressive, properties have been attributed to the economically important swine pathogen porcine circovirus 47 . Of interest, one of the piglets died at the peak of kobuvirus shedding, although it was not clear if there was any causality between virus replication and the piglet's death. In vivo animal experiments in a model of neonatal, conventional kobuvirus-negative piglets should be conducted to elucidate the pathogenesis of porcine kobuviruses. Attempts were made to isolate the virus in different cell lines (MA104, ST and SK), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. There was no evidence of cytopathogenic effect after several days of incubation. Antibodies to visualize antigen expression were not available and therefore the possibility of replication without SCIenTIFIC REPORTS | (2018) 8:9830 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9 evident cytopathogenic effect cannot be ruled out. Efforts will be made to isolate the virus in porcine primary enterocyte cultures, once available.
To assess more broadly the prevalence of kobuvirus in the Belgian swine industry, a retrospective analysis of diarrheic samples from suckling piglets less than two weeks old was conducted. A high proportion (40.9%) of the samples (n = 44) contained quantifiable viral loads ranging between 4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/g feces. Viral loads found were thus comparable to the loads excreted by piglets in the longitudinal analysis and the above-mentioned study from Denmark, demonstrating the endemic presence of the virus in the Belgian swine population 42 .
In the present study, non-diarrheic piglets were not included and therefore no association between kobuvirus prevalence and disease can be made. However, the prevalence of kobuvirus has been widely described in pigs from several European countries (The Netherlands (16.7%), Slovakia (63.4%), Hungary (81.0%), Czech Republic (87.3%), Austria (46.2%), Italy (52.4%), Germany (54.5%) and Sweden (45.0%)), American countries (The United States (21.9%) and Brazil (53.0%)), African countries (Kenya (14.9%) and Uganda (15.5%)) and Asian countries (Thailand (99%), South Korea (52.1%) and Vietnam (29.3%)) [44] [45] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . In a small proportion of these studies, statistically significant associations between prevalence of kobuvirus and diarrhea in pigs were demonstrated, such as in Hungary (54.5% prevalence in healthy pigs vs 92.3% prevalence in diarrheic pigs), Spain (47.5% healthy vs 74.4% diarrheic), Brazil (41% vs 78.4%), Thailand (19.3% vs 84.5%) and Vietnam (27.6% to 40.9%) 35, 45, 46, 52 . Indeed, it is difficult to make correlations between prevalence of the virus and diarrhea, as the pathogenicity of the virus could be largely influenced by other factors such as co-infections with other enteric viruses, microbiota and management factors.
Belgian isolates showed genetic moderate to high genetic variability, with nucleotide identities between 90.1 and 97.2%. Furthermore, they clustered diffusely between strains from different countries around the world, indicating that strains are not distinguishable based on their geographical origin.
Because most (99%) of the reads generated during sequencing of the fecal sample 17V079 matched bacteriophages upon analysis with BLAST, bacteriophages may have played an important role in the pathogenesis of the diarrheic disease. De novo assembled contigs were analyzed using VirSorter, a software package for mining viral signals from microbial genomic data. Such tools allow maximizing the possibility of detecting dsDNA phages 54 . Several contigs showed high similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, found in municipal wastewater and human fecal samples. It was shown to be absent in 30 samples collected from different animal species, including pigs, and is therefore considered a human-specific phage 55, 56 . The finding of several contigs, genetically similar to phage B124 and likely belonging to one phage genome, indicates that this phage found in the pig fecal sample may also replicate in the microbiome of the young pig gut and not solely in humans. However, it is possible that the phage's replication ability in the pig's gut is age-dependent and that very young age groups were not sampled in previous studies. Interestingly, several of the contigs found also showed similarities to Escherichia phages. Two of the contigs were similar to Escherichia phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7, isolated from Belgian rivers in the neighborhood of poultry houses and known to cause lytic infections in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Electron microscopic images of the phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7 indicated that they belonged to the family Podoviridae 57 . Two other contigs were similar to two closely related Escherichia phages, St11Ph5 and G7C, found in sewage and horse feces, respectively 58 . Finally, one contig showed limited similarity to an Enterococcus phage, isolated from hospital sewage in China, while a last contig showed moderate similaraties to the bacterial Enterococcus hirae genome. This region may be a prophage, inserted in the bacterial genome.
The phages found in this piglet may have reshaped the gut microbiota, allowing opportunistic bacteria such as Enterococcus hirae to proliferate and to start secreting toxins. It is also possible that a phage infection of bacteria in the pig's gut led to a stress status for these bacteria, prompting the secretion of toxins. The new neonatal diarrhea syndrome described above shows high similarities to the disease described in the case 17V079 and it may be that bacteriophages are involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. So far, the role of phages has not been considered in the pathogenesis of several enteric disorders, but given the high abundance here, it should be in future studies.
It is clear that new technologies will change the way diagnostics are be performed in the near future. Pricing might currently be an aspect hampering high-troughput analysis of samples in swine veterinary medicine, but as the technology evolves fast, this might become very soon less relevant. Complete overviews of all viruses and other pathogens in a sample will be given in a single readout instead of requiring different diagnostic assays. However, care should be given to the interpretation of such results, as they should only be analyzed by trained veterinarians.
Viruses. Porcine rotavirus A (RVA) strain RVA/Pig-tc/BEL/12R046/2012/G9P [23] was isolated from a diarrheic piglet and grown for three successive passages in MA104 cells to an infectious virus titer of 10 7.8 CCID 50 / ml. The nucleotide sequences of the 11 gene segments of this strain were resolved earlier using Sanger sequencing (GenBank accession numbers: KM82070 (VP1), KM820707 (VP2), KM827014 (VP3), KM820720 (VP4), KM820728 (VP6), KM820735 (VP7), KM820742 (NSP1), KM820672 (NSP2), KM820679 (NSP3), KM820686 (NSP4) and KM820693 (NSP5)) 59 . A porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV, CV777) isolated in Belgium in the 1970s was adapted for growth in Vero cells in the 1980s 60 . In our Laboratory, the virus was grown to an infectious virus titer of 10 6.0 CCID 50 /ml (GenBank accession number: AF353511).
Origin of a fecal sample from diarrheic suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample was collected from a Belgian pig on a farm housing a total of 620 sows and using a 2-week batch-production system, with a weaning age of 23 days. Topigs Norsvin sows were crossed with Piétrain boars, producing 32. toxins (Suiseng, Hipra). Rotavirus A vaccination was done off-label with an inactivated bovine rotavirus A vaccine (Lactovac, Zoetis). Until recently, diarrheic problems were rarely present in suckling piglets and also very low mortality percentages (6.2-7.1%) were observed. Since the spring of 2017, enteric disease started causing more severe problems accompanied with mortality on this farm, mainly in 7-days-old suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample of such a piglet was investigated at a private diagnostic laboratory (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) and labeled 17V079. No virological cause was found to explain the diarrheic problems on the farm. The only isolated bacterium was Enterococcus hirae. This bacterium was thereon added to the sow vaccination schedule (inactivated autovaccine). No other pathogens were found in this sample. As the clinical picture hinted at a viral cause for the disease, the sample was sent to the Laboratory of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Ghent University) for further analysis. The sample tested negative for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV using in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61, 62 . Therefore, it was decided to perform a metagenomics analysis with MinION described in this study.
Purification of viral nucleic acids. First, viral enrichment was done based on the NetoVIR protocol to obtain pure viral nucleic acids for sequencing library preparation 13 . MinION analyses of cell culture grown viruses RVA and PEDV were conducted at the Laboratory of Clinical Virology (Rega Institute, KU Leuven), whereas the diarrheic fecal sample was analyzed at the Laboratory of Virology (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University). RVA and PEDV stocks were centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 3 min. The supernatant of both suspensions was diluted to 6 log 10 CCID 50 /ml and 500 µl of each suspension was mixed to reach an equal concentration of both viruses. This mixture was filtered using a 0.8 µm polyethersulphone filter for 1 min at 17,000 × g, followed by a nuclease treatment for 2 hours at 37 °C to digest free nucleic acids in the suspension: 250 µl of the sample was added to 14 µl of home-made buffer (1 M Tris, 100 mM CaCl 2 and 30 mM MgCl 2 , pH 8), 4 µl of Benzonase Nuclease (Millipore) and 2 µl Micrococcal Nuclease (NEB) as described earlier 13 . Fourteen microliters of EDTA were added to stop the reaction, followed by extraction of nucleic acids from the viral particles using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). The manufacturer's instructions were followed but no carrier RNA was added and elution was done in 30 µl of AVE to concentrate the viral nucleic acid extract.
The diarrheic fecal sample 17V079 was processed similarly as the cell culture grown viruses, with some minor modifications. A 10% w/v suspension of the diarrhea was made in Minimum Essential Medium and centrifuged. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter (Sarstedt) and treated with Benzonase Nuclease for 1 hour to speed up the diagnostic pipeline. Viral nucleic acids were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions without addition of carrier RNA. Elution was done in a volume of 50 µl. cDNA and second strand synthesis for nanopore sequencing. Nucleic acids were heated at 95 °C for 2 min and chilled on ice to resolve secondary RNA structures and to denature double-stranded RNA. Superscript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) was used to generate cDNA. Ten microliters of template nucleic acids were mixed with 0.5 µl random hexamer primers (Random Primer 6, New England Biolabs), 1 µl dNTP mix (NEB) and 2.5 µl nuclease-free water. Primer annealing was conducted at 65 °C for 5 min, after which 4 µl Superscript IV Reaction Buffer (ThermoScientific), 1 µl dithiothreitol (ThermoScientific) and 1 µl SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) were added in a total reaction volume of 20 µl. The reaction conditions were as follows: 23 °C for 10 min, 50 °C for 10 min, 80 °C for 10 min and an infinite hold step at 10 °C.
A second strand of DNA was generated from single stranded (c)DNA molecules using the NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Kit (NEB). Twenty microliters cDNA reaction mixture were added to 10 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Reaction Buffer, 5 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Enzyme Mix and 45 µl nuclease-free water (80 µl total reaction volume). Isothermal amplification was done at 16 °C for 1 h and double-stranded nucleic acids were purified using 144 µl of magnetic AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter). Two washing steps with freshly prepared 70% ethanol were conducted before eluting in 52 µl nuclease-free water.
Nanopore sequencing library preparation. A deoxyadenosine was ligated to the 3′-end of double-stranded nucleic acids to allow binding of complimentary sequencing adapters. Fifty microliters of (un) amplified DNA were mixed with 7 µl Ultra II End-Prep Reaction Buffer (New England Biolabs) and 3 µl Ultra II End-prep enzyme mix (New England Biolabs), and incubated at 20 °C for 5 min and 65 °C for 5 min. Next, nucleic acids were purified using 60 µl AMPure XP Beads and eluted in 31 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing adapters, provided with the Ligation Sequencing Kit 1D (R9.4) (SQK-LSK108, ONT), were ligated to the dA-tailed nucleic acids. End-prepped DNA (30 µl) was mixed with 20 µl adapter mix (AMX, ONT) and 50 µl Blunt/TA Ligation Master Mix (New England Biolabs) in a total reaction volume of 100 µl and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The sequencing library, containing double-stranded DNA with adapters ligated to the 3′ ends, was then purified using 40 µl AMPure XP beads. Two washing steps were conducted using 140 µl Adapter Bead Binding Buffer (ABB, ONT) before eluting in 15 µl of Elution Buffer (ELB, ONT). (EXP-LLB001, ONT), 12 µl adapted and tethered library and 12.5 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing was done using the software programme MinKNOW software (ONT).
Bio-informatics analyses. Raw reads were produced by MinKNOW. Live basecalling was enabled for the first experiment using MinKNOW version 1.5.5. In the second experiment, basecalling was done after the sequencing run using Albacore (version 1.2.5., ONT). Quality scores and read lengths were visualized using NanoPlot, followed by quality filtering with NanoFilt 63 . Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were omitted. Sequences were then analyzed using different BLAST methods including BLASTn and tBLASTx (BLAST version 2.6.0; e-value cut-off 1e −3 -1e −10 ) to compare sensitivity and run-times to detect viral sequences among the reads. A complete viral database was composed of all virus sequences in GenBank (taxonomy ID 10239, containing sequences up to 17th of September 2017). The best hit (lowest e-value) was visualized using KronaTools 64 . Reads matching viruses were extracted using Seqtk (https://github.com/lh3/seqtk) and used in downstream analyses. GraphMap (version 0.5.2) and Samtools (version 1.6) were used for mapping of reads against reference sequences, while Canu 1.6 was used for de novo assembly of viral genomes [65] [66] [67] [68] . VirSorter was run using the 'Viromes' database to look for phages, with the Virome Decontamination Mode on to identify phage contigs 54 . Bio-informatics analyses were executed on a local computer cluster and the high-performance computing facilities of Ghent University. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Sanger sequencing of porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the sample 17V079 using the MinION. The sequence of the 3D gene of porcine kobuvirus encodes the polymerase and is considered to be most conserved among different strains. The exact nucleotide sequence of this virus was verified using reverse transcripion polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing, as low coverage was obtained with MinION. RT-PCR was executed using the OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen) with the newly designed primers Kobu_6049Fw and Kobu_7524Rv (IDT DNA Technologies) ( Table 2 ). The RT-PCR reaction contained 5 µl 5 × Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Buffer, 1 µl dNTPs, 3 µl of each primer (10 µm), 7 µl nuclease-free water, 1 µl OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix and 5 µl template RNA or water (total reaction volume of 25 µl). RT-PCR conditions were as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 15 min, followed by 30 cycles of amplification (94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72° for 90 s) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Reactions were held at 10 °C prior to loading 5 µl PCR product with 1 µl of loading dye in a 1.5% agarose gel. Electrophoresis was conducted for 30 min at 100 V and PCR product was visualized by ethidium bromide staining and UV light. The amplicon was sent to GATC (Constance, Germany) for Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer system. Quality control of the raw chromatograms was done using 4Peaks (Nucleobytes BV, The Netherlands) and BLASTn (NCBI, United States).
Specific RT-qPCR primers (Table 2) for the porcine kobuvirus polymerase-encoding gene were designed using Primerquest and Oligoanalyzer (IDT DNA Technologies) to allow exact quantification in feces of piglets. Each RT-qPCR reaction consisted of 10 µl PrecisionPlus OneStep qRT-PCR Mastermix containing SYBR Green, ROX and an inert blue pipetting dye (Primerdesign, Southampton, United Kingdom), 0.4 µl of each primer (200 nM) and 6.2 µl nuclease-free water. Three microliters of template RNA or water were added to each tube containing 17 µl mastermix. A synthetic RNA positive control (175nt) was generated by RT-PCR using the primers Kobu3D_qPCR +T7_Fw and Kobu3D_qPCR_Rv, followed by in vitro transcription of this PCR product using a T7 RNA polymerase. The positive control was measured using Nanodrop and used to setup a standard curve over a linear dynamic range (LDR) from six to one log 10 copies/reaction. Reaction conditions were as follows: 55 °C for 10 min and 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95 °C for 10 s) and annealing (58 °C for 60 s). Detection of SYBR Green fluorescence was done at the end of each annealing phase. A melt curve analysis was executed to assess specificity of the amplicons generated. Each dilution point in the standard curve and each sample was tested in duplicates. Amplicons were analyzed once on an agarose gel to assess the correct length of the amplicon and Sanger sequencing was conducted to confirm the amplification of the partial porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. Assays were valid if the efficiency over the LDR was between 90 and 110%, and R 2 of the standard curve replicates was >0.99. Quantification of the viral loads was possible if the Cq-values of two qPCR replicates fell within the LDR of the assay. Both replicates had to be positive for a sample to be considered as positive. If the Cq-values of specific amplicons have fallen behind the lowest point of the standard curve, the sample was considered positive but not quantifiable. Longitudinal investigation of kobuvirus and rotavirus shedding in suckling piglets. Upon characterization of the virome with the MinION, a longitudinal follow-up study was setup between August and September 2017. To warrant the health status of the pig stock, entrance to the farm was strictly regulated. Sampling was performed by the farmer. Detailed instructions and sampling materials were provided to the farmer. Sample collection in the longitudinal field study was done in agreement with the European legislation on animal experiments. Sample collection was approved by and done in accordance to the requirements of the Local Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University. One day after parturition of the sows, five litters were selected at random. Within each litter, one piglet was identified for longitudinal follow-up during the entire suckling period. A dry cotton rectal swab (Copan) was collected from each individual piglet at days 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 after birth. The swab was placed immediately in 2 ml of viral transport medium (phosphate buffered saline containing 1000 U/ml penicillin (Continental Pharma, Puurs, Belgium), 1 mg/ml streptomycin (Certa, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium), 1 mg/ml gentamicin (Life Technologies) and 0.01% v/v Fungizone (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium)) in a sterile 15 ml falcon tube (Sarstedt) and stored at −20 °C. Every week, samples were collected from the farm and transported to the Laboratory of Virology. The farmer was asked to mark the tube of each sample for presence or absence of diarrheic signs. Upon arrival in the Laboratory of Virology, the samples were thawed and placed on a shaker for 30 min at 4 °C to release viral particles in the transport medium. Samples were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified nucleic acids were eluted in 100 µl of AVE and stored at −70 °C until RT-qPCR analysis. RT-qPCR analysis was conducted, as described above, to quantify porcine kobuvirus genome copies per swab. Furthermore, RVA and RVC shedding was assessed using previously described in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61 .
Belgian suckling pigs. Fecal samples (n = 44) of diarrheic suckling piglets less than 2 weeks old were sent to a private laboratory by veterinarians (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) for etiological diagnosis, as described earlier.
These samples were collected in 2014 and stored at −70 °C in the laboratory. They had previously been evaluated for the presence of rotaviruses using RT-qPCR 25 . RNA extraction was conducted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit (Qiagen) as described above and RT-qPCR was done to quantify the load of kobuvirus RNA copies. Samples with a quantifiable viral load were subjected to RT-PCR to amplify the 3D polymerase gene, after which Sanger sequencing was performed. The sequences encoding the polymerase of 11 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates were deposited into GenBank with accession numbers MH184664-MH184674. The sequences were used to conduct a multiple sequence alignment together with other porcine kobuvirus strains in MEGA 7 using the ClustalW plug-in 69 . A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with RAxML using a general time reversible model with gamma distribution (20 cats, alpha: 0.121, LogLK = 14938.461) and heuristic branch swapping 70 . Tree editing was done using Affinity Designer (Serif). Pairwise distances were calculated using the p-distance model in Mega with bootstrap values set at 500 replicates. | What was investigated in this study? | 5,287 | The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics | 629 |
1,666 | Nanopore sequencing as a revolutionary diagnostic tool for porcine viral enteric disease complexes identifies porcine kobuvirus as an important enteric virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026206/
SHA: eff8bed68ef6109e8f0c51a8b1ec4b6ca5b6329e
Authors: Theuns, Sebastiaan; Vanmechelen, Bert; Bernaert, Quinten; Deboutte, Ward; Vandenhole, Marilou; Beller, Leen; Matthijnssens, Jelle; Maes, Piet; Nauwynck, Hans J.
Date: 2018-06-29
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9
License: cc-by
Abstract: Enteric diseases in swine are often caused by different pathogens and thus metagenomics are a useful tool for diagnostics. The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics were investigated here. First, cell culture-grown porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and rotavirus A were pooled and sequenced on a MinION. Reads were already detected at 7 seconds after start of sequencing, resulting in high sequencing depths (19.2 to 103.5X) after 3 h. Next, diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet was analyzed. Almost all reads (99%) belonged to bacteriophages, which may have reshaped the piglet’s microbiome. Contigs matched Bacteroides, Escherichia and Enterococcus phages. Moreover, porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the feces for the first time in Belgium. Suckling piglets shed kobuvirus from one week of age, but an association between peak of viral shedding (10(6.42)–10(7.01) copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed during a follow-up study. Retrospective analysis showed the widespread (n = 25, 56.8% positive) of genetically moderately related kobuviruses among Belgian diarrheic piglets. MinION enables rapid detection of enteric viruses. Such new methodologies will change diagnostics, but more extensive validations should be conducted. The true enteric pathogenicity of porcine kobuvirus should be questioned, while its subclinical importance cannot be excluded.
Text: metagenomics is a valuable asset for diagnostics in pigs, leading to discovery of novel viruses and identification of porcine viral enteric disease complexes. Although standardized procedures have been developed to study viral metagenomes in fecal samples, they still require an extensive sample preparation, including random or targeted pre-amplification of viral genomes present in the sample 13 . Most sequencing platforms still require capital investments and high sample turnover rates to be cost-effective. Performing the necessary analyses often results in long time periods between sample arrival and diagnostic reporting, since results can only be processed after finishing the sequencing run. Third-generation sequencing using MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ONT) might be a useful and affordable diagnostic tool for swine veterinary medicine as it allows rapid sample preparation and real-time sequence analysis. The flowcells used for sequencing consist of a membrane containing multiple CsgG nanopore proteins from Escherichia coli 14 . An ion current is established through this pore resulting in typical current changes upon passage of specific nucleotides. This signal is converted into a nucleotide sequence by computational algorithms (basecalling). Since the release of MinION technology, major advances have been made in terms of the number and the quality of reads generated 15 . In the field of virology, the technology has mainly been applied in human medicine. Using nanopore sequencing, it was possible to distinguish three poxviruses with 98% nucleotide similarity at strain level 16 . MinION has also been used as a diagnostic tool during recent Ebolavirus outbreaks in West Africa, allowing fast on-site characterization of circulating strains 17, 18 . Coupled to a laptop-based bioinformatics workflow, MinION was able to detect Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus and hepatitis C virus in less than 6 hours using earlier versions of the technology 19 . A multiplex PCR method for complete on-site Zikavirus genome sequencing in samples with low viral loads has recently been developed by Quick and coworkers 20 . Partial dengue virus genomes were isothermally amplified followed by sequencing, allowing classification of strains in serotypes 21 . In veterinary virology, the use of nanopore sequencing is growing. A novel species of papillomavirus was identified in warts from giraffes, using rolling-circle amplification and nanopore sequencing 22 . The entire genome of a parapoxvirus isolated from a seal was obtained by combining data from Illumina next-generation sequencing with nanopore sequencing data 23 . One study has reported the detection of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from unamplified cDNA created from poly-A tailed RNA using cell culture grown viruses 24 . To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first using MinION as an aid in porcine health management. This study was aimed to explore the possibilities of MinION as a rapid and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in pig health management for diagnosis of viral enteric disease complexes. The ability to detect high loads of cell culture-grown rotavirus and coronavirus, mimicking shedding quantities observed in diarrheic piglets, was evaluated. In a second case, the ability to detect (novel) viruses in diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet with diarrhea was investigated. No gene-specific or random pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids was conducted to challenge the MinION's sensitivity. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the latter case and a longitudinal field study was conducted hereafter to elucidate the shedding patterns of this virus. Moreover, archival (2014) fecal samples from diarrheic suckling piglets less than two weeks old were investigated for the presence of kobuviruses, to study their epidemiology in Belgium.
be performed for 243,313 reads with a mean length of 740 nucleotides. Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were filtered out, resulting in 179,015 remaining sequences (mean length 816 nt) for use in downstream analyses. Results of the sequencing run, including taxonomical classification and mapping of reads against PEDV and rotavirus A (RVA) reference genomes are shown in Fig. 1A . After 24 hours of sequencing, a total of 15,232 reads were classified as viral by sensitive tBLASTx comparison against a complete viral database. Of these, 39.3% (n = 5,985) and 10.3% (n = 1,564) were assigned to viral families comprising Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (family Coronaviridae) and Rotavirus (family Reoviridae, subfamily Sedoreovirinae), respectively. A fraction of the reads (29.3%, n = 4,468) were assigned to order Caudovirales. These reads originated from the lambda phage DNA used in a previous control run on the same flowcell. At 7.5 and 24.2 seconds after the start of sequencing, respectively, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were translocated through a nanopore. Most reads were generated in the first twelve hours of sequencing and read accumulation was most exponential in the first three hours of sequencing (Fig. 1B) . PEDV and RVA sequences were extracted from the dataset and mapped against viral reference genes to calculate sequencing depths over time (Fig. 1C) . After one hour, sequencing depths were higher for PEDV (43.0X) than for RVA (4.9 to 22.1X). High sequencing depths were acquired after three hours of sequencing for PEDV (103.5X) and for most RVA gene segments (19.2 to 48.2X).
De novo assembly was executed on the quality-filtered reads prior to identification (tBLASTx) to recover viral genomes. This resulted in the recovery of the almost complete PEDV genome and RVA gene segments with identities varying between 95 and 99% compared to the reference genes (Table 1) . Higher assembly accuracies (97 to 99%) were obtained when only the reads matching against rotavirus and PEDV were included for de novo assembly (Table 1) . However, execution of de novo assembly prior to taxonomical classification (tBLASTx) reduced the time to identify entire viral genomes in the dataset.
Virome composition of a young diarrheic piglet using nanopore sequencing. A total of 30,088 reads were generated by sequencing the diarrheic fecal sample for three hours. Of these, 25,466 reads (q-score >7, mean read length 653 nt) were used for further analyses. Different methods were used to compare the reads against a viral database using the HPC cluster of Ghent University and results are shown in Fig. 2 . Comparison against a complete viral database resulted in the detection of 6,781 to 8,677 potential viral reads, depending on the BLAST settings. BLASTn resulted in rapid taxonomical identification of reads at almost similar sensitivity compared to tBLASTx. However, there was a very high difference between wall times on the HPC cluster, with only 26 seconds of analysis time for BLASTn, versus almost 24 hours for tBLASTx. The majority of sequences were assigned to bacteriophages within the order Caudovirales and families Siphoviridae (n = 3,213 to 4,163 reads), Podoviridae (n = 2,506 to 3,002 reads) and Myoviridae (n = 912 to 1,202 reads). A de novo assembly was executed on the basecalled, quality filtered reads and the resulting contigs were used as input material for VirSorter analysis. Nineteen contigs were classified as sure (n = 4; category 1), somewhat sure (=14; category 2) and not so sure (=1; category 3) to be phage-like contigs (Fig. 2B) . Comparison of these contigs against the GenBank database using BLAST allowed classification into four different groups. Ten contigs showed moderate to high nucleotide similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, suggesting that they all belonged to one phage genome. This was also supported by the fact that all these contigs mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Bacteroides phage B124-14 (data not shown). The longest contig with a size of 39,069 nucleotides, together with four other contigs showed similarities (95% nt identity) to different Escherichia phages. As they also mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Escherichia phage vB_EcoP_PhAPEC7, it seems that they must also belong to one phage genome (data not shown). Two contigs showed poor similarity to both the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME_196, isolated from hospital sewage in China from an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and the Enterococcus hirae bacterial genome. The latter might be a prophage inserted in the bacterial genome. Interestingly, three contigs were identified for which no similarities were found with existing viruses in GenBank, but contig 0105 mapped to the reference genome of the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME196 (data not shown). These might be novel phages or divergent variants from existing phages present in GenBank.
Three eukaryotic porcine viruses, porcine kobuvirus (n = 18 to 22 reads), enterovirus G (n = 5 to 9 reads) and astrovirus (n = 4 reads) were found at much lower abundancies. The genera Kobuvirus and Enterovirus belong to the family Picornaviridae, whereas the genus Mamastrovirus belongs to the family Astroviridae. Kobuvirus reads were mapped against a European reference strain S-1/HUN/2007/Hungary, as shown in Fig. 2C . However, full-genome coverage at high sequencing depth was not obtained.
Shedding of porcine kobuvirus and rotaviruses in suckling piglets. The shedding of porcine kobuvirus, RVA and rotavirus C (RVC) was quantitatively investigated in 5 suckling pigs of the same farm from which the diarrheic feces originated. The fecal shedding patterns of the different viruses and presence of diarrheic signs are shown in Fig. 3A . All piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus at the end of the first week after parturition. In two piglets (A and D) the shedding was sustained and lasted for at least 2 weeks (above the limit of quantification). Peak shedding titers of the porcine kobuvirus varied between 6.42 and 7.01 log 10 copies/swab, which is generally lower than peak shedding observed for typical enteric viruses such as rotavirus and PEDV. Moreover, the peak of shedding was not related to diarrheic episodes, questioning the role of this virus in the pathogenesis of diarrhea on the farm. Diarrheic signs were only noticed in two piglets (A and B). In piglet B, an association between high RVC shedding and diarrheic episodes was observed. In contrast, there was no direct association between peak shedding of kobuvirus and diarrheic episodes. Interestingly, a peak in kobuvirus shedding was observed in piglet C at day 11 post-farrowing. This animal died shortly hereafter, but it was unclear if this can be attributable to the kobuvirus infection. Acute RVA shedding was observed at the end of the suckling period in three of five piglets, even though all sows were vaccinated before farrowing using a bovine inactivated rotavirus vaccine.
Retrospective analysis of porcine kobuviruses shedding in Belgian diarrheic suckling pigs and phylogenetic analysis. A total of 44 diarrheic fecal samples collected in 2014 were screened for the presence of kobuvirus using the new RT-qPCR. Of these, 25 samples (56.8%) tested positive and 18 samples showed quantifiable viral loads (4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/swab). Seven samples were positive, but viral loads were too low to allow accurate quantification. The presence of RVA and RVC had been quantitatively assessed in these samples in a previous study and the occurrence of co-infections between rotaviruses and kobuvirus is shown in Fig. 3B 25 . Kobuvirus was found in equal ratios in rotavirus-negative and -positive samples. Twelve samples contained a single rotavirus infection with a high RVA load and in four of these, a high kobuvirus load (5.16 to 5.42 log 10 copies/g) was observed. A single RVC infection was found in seven samples and in four of these tested positive for kobuvirus at high loads (4.31 to 5.59 log 10 copies/g). A dual RVA/RVC infection was seen in two samples, but neither contained quantifiable kobuvirus loads. Many (n = 10) of the rotavirus-negative samples contained high kobuvirus loads.
Strain 17V079 showed high similarity to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates from 2014 (92.1 to 94.0% nucleotide sequence identity) and the Hungarian reference strain S-1/Hun/2017 (93.4%). Furthermore, there was a high level of genetic variability between the 2014 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates, with nucleotide sequence identities ranging between 90.1 and 97.2%. A phylogenetic analysis, using the 3D gene of 17V079 and twelve Belgian isolates from 2014 ( Fig. 3C) , shows the Belgian strains clustering between strains from different geographical locations.
Prevention and treatment of enteric disease problems in young piglets is frequently hampered by a lack of diagnostic tools. Veterinarians are restricted to a short list of known viruses, bacteria, parasites and management factors to define a differential diagnosis. Only the most likely cause(s) of the disease will be diagnostically investigated, often leading to negative, inconclusive or incomplete results. However, metagenomics studies have indicated the existence of viral enteric disease complexes, potentially involving multiple known and novel viruses 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 . Detection of nucleic acids from pathogens using NGS-based metagenomics approaches is a partial solution to diagnostic testing problems and can provide a complete readout of viruses and other pathogens present in a sample. However, most NGS platforms require large investments and processing of the reads can only start at the end of the sequencing run. Viral metagenomics also requires extensive laboratory preparations, including centrifugation, filtration and nuclease treatment to discard bacterial and host nucleic acids that make up to the bulk of all nucleic acids present 13 . Furthermore, the amount of viral nucleic acids in a sample is very low, requiring targeted or random amplification of these genomes before NGS analysis. Amplification may induce bias and hampers the development of a fast diagnostic pipelines due to considerable time loss. All these factors lead to a long turnover time between sample collection and diagnostic reporting. The third-generation sequencing device MinION (ONT), holds promise as a diagnostic platform, as it allows real-time sequencing and analyses of all DNA/RNA in a sample, theoretically without needing pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate this technology for use as a rapid tool for porcine viral enteric disease complex identification, without the conduction of viral nucleic acid amplification. In a first experiment, cell culture-grown PEDV and RVA, known to induce diarrhea in young pigs, were pooled at high loads mimicking shedding quantities in diarrheic piglets. Sequencing of this pooled sample with the MinION resulted in rapid identification of both viruses. Real-time analysis of the sequencing reads was not conducted, but is achievable as previously demonstrated by Greninger and colleagues using the SURPI analysis pipeline for rapid identification of human viruses from different clinical matrices 19 . Interestingly, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were generated respectively after 7 and 24 seconds of sequencing. High sequencing depths (43.0X) were acquired within one hour of sequencing for PEDV and within three hours for most of the eleven RVA gene segments (19.2-48.2X). Overall, higher sequencing depths were generated for PEDV that could indicate that sequencing of longer viral genomes is favored over smaller gene segments, as PEDV has a genome size of approximately 28 kb, and RVA gene segments are shorter (0.6 to 3.3 kb). This bias might have been introduced during the ligation of the sequencing adapters to the viral nucleic acids. It can be hypothesized that adapters are more easily attached to longer DNA fragments, and bias should be avoided by standardization of viral nucleic acid input length. Rapid read generation allows flexible use of the sequencing platform and sequences can be read until enough genome information of the viruses of interest is available. While the technology can be useful for giving fast readouts of viruses (<3 hours) present in a sample, thorough validation, using well-defined virus stocks, spiking experiments in matrices (e.g. feces) and real clinical samples is necessary to make sure that all members of the porcine viral enteric disease complex are accurately being diagnosed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the technology needs further improvement, as error rates of contigs from de novo assemblies still ranged between 1 and 5%, hindering the precise analysis of subtle but important mutations in the viral genome.
After the successful identification of the cell culture-grown viruses, the performance of the MinION was further explored by analyzing a diarrheic fecal sample of a one-week-old suckling piglet. Real-time PCR analyses were conducted for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV. Enterococcus hirae was isolated at a private diagnostic laboratory, but this bacterial species is not considered a typical cause of diarrheic disease in pigs 26 . Viral metagenomics was conducted on this sample using the MinION and two different BLAST search algorithms were used to taxonomically identify the reads by comparing them against a complete viral database. Overall, tBLASTx with an e-value of 10 −3 was able to identify the most viral reads compared to other search options conducted. However, BLASTn search options also reached high sensitivity, but at much lower time cost: 26 seconds instead of almost 24 hours. For rapid read analysis and searching for closely related non-divergent viral sequences, BLASTn or another fast methodology should thus be preferentially used. However, tBLASTx might pick up more divergent or novel viruses, improving overall sensitivity.
Three porcine viruses, including porcine kobuvirus, porcine mamastrovirus and enterovirus G, were identified in sample 17V079. Astro-and enteroviruses have been detected earlier in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic feces of Belgian pigs and in feces from pigs around the globe 9,10,27 . In a recent study from Thailand, the difference in prevalence of astrovirus in diarrheic (8.4%) versus non-diarrheic (4.6%) piglets less than 4-weeks-old was not statistically significant. Also other studies have shown that the role of porcine astrovirus in the pathogenesis of pig diarrhea is not completely clear 28 . In contrast, associations between diarrhea and human astrovirus infections have been made 29 . A recent study in 5 European countries (Hungary, Spain, Germany, Austria and Sweden) have indicated the widespread of porcine astroviruses in the swine population. A one hundred procent prevalence of astrovirus was found in diarrheic and non-diarrheic pigs from Austria and Spain. Porcine astroviruses have recently also been linked to outbreaks of neurological disorders in weaned piglets from Hungary, and in 5-week-old pigs and sows in the United States 30, 31 . The gut might be a hypothetical entry port for such neurological astrovirus infections.
Enteroviruses have been more generally linked to neurological disorders in pigs, although they are commonly found in feces as well 11, 12, [32] [33] [34] . In a study from Vietnam, no significant correlation was found between diarrhea status and presence of enterovirus G in feces 35 . The involvement of both astro-and enteroviruses in the pathogenesis of enteric disorders might be questioned here, but cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, while sensitive tBLASTx searches were used here, there is still a possibility that a completely novel virus might be present in the dark matter of the sequencing reads. However, reporting of a porcine kobuvirus in Belgian piglets with MinION is unique. In Belgium, kobuviruses had previously only been found in diarrheic samples of calves and young cattle in Belgium 36 . In the present study, a novel RT-qPCR assay, targeting the conserved 3D gene encoding the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, was developed and used to assess, for the first time, longitudinal quantitative shedding kinetics of porcine kobuvirus in pigs under field conditions. Similar kinetics were also analyzed for porcine rotavirus A and C. While suckling piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus from one week of age, an association between peak viral shedding (6.42 to 7.01 log 10 copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed. In one pig, an association was made between diarrheic episodes and the peak of rotavirus C shedding, a well-known enteric pathogen 37, 38 . Very interestingly, kobuvirus fecal loads were typically lower than those reported of well-described enteric viruses of which the pathogenicity has been proven using piglet infection models, such as PEDV and rotavirus [39] [40] [41] . Similar viral loads for porcine kobuvirus were also found in case (4.60 ± 1.76 copies/qPCR reaction) and control pigs (4.79 ± 1.72 copies/qPCR reaction) during a recent Danish study to evaluate the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of the new neonatal porcine diarrhea syndrome. The study demonstrated that kobuvirus, astrovirus, rotavirus A, porcine teschovirus, porcine norovirus and porcine coronaviruses were not involved in the pathogenesis of the syndrome 42 . The finding of low kobuvirus loads in feces casts doubt over the true enteric pathogenic tropism of the virus. Hypothetically, its replication is likely not distributed across the whole villus but limited to either enterocytes at the villus' tips or to immune cells present in the gut. The presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum has also been demonstrated in Hungarian pigs, but it was not known if the virus is also replicating in other organs 43 . Both the oro-fecal route and the feeding of milk to sucklings pigs could be involved in virus transmission. Highest rates of infection were observed in suckling piglets, compared to older pigs, in other countries [44] [45] [46] . In our study, relatively long shedding of porcine kobuvirus was observed in three out of five animals, which may indicate that this virus may induce persistent infections. A 2011 Brazilian study demonstrated the presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum from 3-day-old piglets, which had disappeared by day 21, indicating viral clearance from the blood and excluding systemic persistence 45 . A complete lack of pathogenicity cannot be excluded, as porcine kobuviruses might play a role as a subclinically important virus. Such subclinical, yet immunosuppressive, properties have been attributed to the economically important swine pathogen porcine circovirus 47 . Of interest, one of the piglets died at the peak of kobuvirus shedding, although it was not clear if there was any causality between virus replication and the piglet's death. In vivo animal experiments in a model of neonatal, conventional kobuvirus-negative piglets should be conducted to elucidate the pathogenesis of porcine kobuviruses. Attempts were made to isolate the virus in different cell lines (MA104, ST and SK), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. There was no evidence of cytopathogenic effect after several days of incubation. Antibodies to visualize antigen expression were not available and therefore the possibility of replication without SCIenTIFIC REPORTS | (2018) 8:9830 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9 evident cytopathogenic effect cannot be ruled out. Efforts will be made to isolate the virus in porcine primary enterocyte cultures, once available.
To assess more broadly the prevalence of kobuvirus in the Belgian swine industry, a retrospective analysis of diarrheic samples from suckling piglets less than two weeks old was conducted. A high proportion (40.9%) of the samples (n = 44) contained quantifiable viral loads ranging between 4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/g feces. Viral loads found were thus comparable to the loads excreted by piglets in the longitudinal analysis and the above-mentioned study from Denmark, demonstrating the endemic presence of the virus in the Belgian swine population 42 .
In the present study, non-diarrheic piglets were not included and therefore no association between kobuvirus prevalence and disease can be made. However, the prevalence of kobuvirus has been widely described in pigs from several European countries (The Netherlands (16.7%), Slovakia (63.4%), Hungary (81.0%), Czech Republic (87.3%), Austria (46.2%), Italy (52.4%), Germany (54.5%) and Sweden (45.0%)), American countries (The United States (21.9%) and Brazil (53.0%)), African countries (Kenya (14.9%) and Uganda (15.5%)) and Asian countries (Thailand (99%), South Korea (52.1%) and Vietnam (29.3%)) [44] [45] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . In a small proportion of these studies, statistically significant associations between prevalence of kobuvirus and diarrhea in pigs were demonstrated, such as in Hungary (54.5% prevalence in healthy pigs vs 92.3% prevalence in diarrheic pigs), Spain (47.5% healthy vs 74.4% diarrheic), Brazil (41% vs 78.4%), Thailand (19.3% vs 84.5%) and Vietnam (27.6% to 40.9%) 35, 45, 46, 52 . Indeed, it is difficult to make correlations between prevalence of the virus and diarrhea, as the pathogenicity of the virus could be largely influenced by other factors such as co-infections with other enteric viruses, microbiota and management factors.
Belgian isolates showed genetic moderate to high genetic variability, with nucleotide identities between 90.1 and 97.2%. Furthermore, they clustered diffusely between strains from different countries around the world, indicating that strains are not distinguishable based on their geographical origin.
Because most (99%) of the reads generated during sequencing of the fecal sample 17V079 matched bacteriophages upon analysis with BLAST, bacteriophages may have played an important role in the pathogenesis of the diarrheic disease. De novo assembled contigs were analyzed using VirSorter, a software package for mining viral signals from microbial genomic data. Such tools allow maximizing the possibility of detecting dsDNA phages 54 . Several contigs showed high similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, found in municipal wastewater and human fecal samples. It was shown to be absent in 30 samples collected from different animal species, including pigs, and is therefore considered a human-specific phage 55, 56 . The finding of several contigs, genetically similar to phage B124 and likely belonging to one phage genome, indicates that this phage found in the pig fecal sample may also replicate in the microbiome of the young pig gut and not solely in humans. However, it is possible that the phage's replication ability in the pig's gut is age-dependent and that very young age groups were not sampled in previous studies. Interestingly, several of the contigs found also showed similarities to Escherichia phages. Two of the contigs were similar to Escherichia phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7, isolated from Belgian rivers in the neighborhood of poultry houses and known to cause lytic infections in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Electron microscopic images of the phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7 indicated that they belonged to the family Podoviridae 57 . Two other contigs were similar to two closely related Escherichia phages, St11Ph5 and G7C, found in sewage and horse feces, respectively 58 . Finally, one contig showed limited similarity to an Enterococcus phage, isolated from hospital sewage in China, while a last contig showed moderate similaraties to the bacterial Enterococcus hirae genome. This region may be a prophage, inserted in the bacterial genome.
The phages found in this piglet may have reshaped the gut microbiota, allowing opportunistic bacteria such as Enterococcus hirae to proliferate and to start secreting toxins. It is also possible that a phage infection of bacteria in the pig's gut led to a stress status for these bacteria, prompting the secretion of toxins. The new neonatal diarrhea syndrome described above shows high similarities to the disease described in the case 17V079 and it may be that bacteriophages are involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. So far, the role of phages has not been considered in the pathogenesis of several enteric disorders, but given the high abundance here, it should be in future studies.
It is clear that new technologies will change the way diagnostics are be performed in the near future. Pricing might currently be an aspect hampering high-troughput analysis of samples in swine veterinary medicine, but as the technology evolves fast, this might become very soon less relevant. Complete overviews of all viruses and other pathogens in a sample will be given in a single readout instead of requiring different diagnostic assays. However, care should be given to the interpretation of such results, as they should only be analyzed by trained veterinarians.
Viruses. Porcine rotavirus A (RVA) strain RVA/Pig-tc/BEL/12R046/2012/G9P [23] was isolated from a diarrheic piglet and grown for three successive passages in MA104 cells to an infectious virus titer of 10 7.8 CCID 50 / ml. The nucleotide sequences of the 11 gene segments of this strain were resolved earlier using Sanger sequencing (GenBank accession numbers: KM82070 (VP1), KM820707 (VP2), KM827014 (VP3), KM820720 (VP4), KM820728 (VP6), KM820735 (VP7), KM820742 (NSP1), KM820672 (NSP2), KM820679 (NSP3), KM820686 (NSP4) and KM820693 (NSP5)) 59 . A porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV, CV777) isolated in Belgium in the 1970s was adapted for growth in Vero cells in the 1980s 60 . In our Laboratory, the virus was grown to an infectious virus titer of 10 6.0 CCID 50 /ml (GenBank accession number: AF353511).
Origin of a fecal sample from diarrheic suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample was collected from a Belgian pig on a farm housing a total of 620 sows and using a 2-week batch-production system, with a weaning age of 23 days. Topigs Norsvin sows were crossed with Piétrain boars, producing 32. toxins (Suiseng, Hipra). Rotavirus A vaccination was done off-label with an inactivated bovine rotavirus A vaccine (Lactovac, Zoetis). Until recently, diarrheic problems were rarely present in suckling piglets and also very low mortality percentages (6.2-7.1%) were observed. Since the spring of 2017, enteric disease started causing more severe problems accompanied with mortality on this farm, mainly in 7-days-old suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample of such a piglet was investigated at a private diagnostic laboratory (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) and labeled 17V079. No virological cause was found to explain the diarrheic problems on the farm. The only isolated bacterium was Enterococcus hirae. This bacterium was thereon added to the sow vaccination schedule (inactivated autovaccine). No other pathogens were found in this sample. As the clinical picture hinted at a viral cause for the disease, the sample was sent to the Laboratory of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Ghent University) for further analysis. The sample tested negative for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV using in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61, 62 . Therefore, it was decided to perform a metagenomics analysis with MinION described in this study.
Purification of viral nucleic acids. First, viral enrichment was done based on the NetoVIR protocol to obtain pure viral nucleic acids for sequencing library preparation 13 . MinION analyses of cell culture grown viruses RVA and PEDV were conducted at the Laboratory of Clinical Virology (Rega Institute, KU Leuven), whereas the diarrheic fecal sample was analyzed at the Laboratory of Virology (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University). RVA and PEDV stocks were centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 3 min. The supernatant of both suspensions was diluted to 6 log 10 CCID 50 /ml and 500 µl of each suspension was mixed to reach an equal concentration of both viruses. This mixture was filtered using a 0.8 µm polyethersulphone filter for 1 min at 17,000 × g, followed by a nuclease treatment for 2 hours at 37 °C to digest free nucleic acids in the suspension: 250 µl of the sample was added to 14 µl of home-made buffer (1 M Tris, 100 mM CaCl 2 and 30 mM MgCl 2 , pH 8), 4 µl of Benzonase Nuclease (Millipore) and 2 µl Micrococcal Nuclease (NEB) as described earlier 13 . Fourteen microliters of EDTA were added to stop the reaction, followed by extraction of nucleic acids from the viral particles using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). The manufacturer's instructions were followed but no carrier RNA was added and elution was done in 30 µl of AVE to concentrate the viral nucleic acid extract.
The diarrheic fecal sample 17V079 was processed similarly as the cell culture grown viruses, with some minor modifications. A 10% w/v suspension of the diarrhea was made in Minimum Essential Medium and centrifuged. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter (Sarstedt) and treated with Benzonase Nuclease for 1 hour to speed up the diagnostic pipeline. Viral nucleic acids were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions without addition of carrier RNA. Elution was done in a volume of 50 µl. cDNA and second strand synthesis for nanopore sequencing. Nucleic acids were heated at 95 °C for 2 min and chilled on ice to resolve secondary RNA structures and to denature double-stranded RNA. Superscript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) was used to generate cDNA. Ten microliters of template nucleic acids were mixed with 0.5 µl random hexamer primers (Random Primer 6, New England Biolabs), 1 µl dNTP mix (NEB) and 2.5 µl nuclease-free water. Primer annealing was conducted at 65 °C for 5 min, after which 4 µl Superscript IV Reaction Buffer (ThermoScientific), 1 µl dithiothreitol (ThermoScientific) and 1 µl SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) were added in a total reaction volume of 20 µl. The reaction conditions were as follows: 23 °C for 10 min, 50 °C for 10 min, 80 °C for 10 min and an infinite hold step at 10 °C.
A second strand of DNA was generated from single stranded (c)DNA molecules using the NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Kit (NEB). Twenty microliters cDNA reaction mixture were added to 10 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Reaction Buffer, 5 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Enzyme Mix and 45 µl nuclease-free water (80 µl total reaction volume). Isothermal amplification was done at 16 °C for 1 h and double-stranded nucleic acids were purified using 144 µl of magnetic AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter). Two washing steps with freshly prepared 70% ethanol were conducted before eluting in 52 µl nuclease-free water.
Nanopore sequencing library preparation. A deoxyadenosine was ligated to the 3′-end of double-stranded nucleic acids to allow binding of complimentary sequencing adapters. Fifty microliters of (un) amplified DNA were mixed with 7 µl Ultra II End-Prep Reaction Buffer (New England Biolabs) and 3 µl Ultra II End-prep enzyme mix (New England Biolabs), and incubated at 20 °C for 5 min and 65 °C for 5 min. Next, nucleic acids were purified using 60 µl AMPure XP Beads and eluted in 31 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing adapters, provided with the Ligation Sequencing Kit 1D (R9.4) (SQK-LSK108, ONT), were ligated to the dA-tailed nucleic acids. End-prepped DNA (30 µl) was mixed with 20 µl adapter mix (AMX, ONT) and 50 µl Blunt/TA Ligation Master Mix (New England Biolabs) in a total reaction volume of 100 µl and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The sequencing library, containing double-stranded DNA with adapters ligated to the 3′ ends, was then purified using 40 µl AMPure XP beads. Two washing steps were conducted using 140 µl Adapter Bead Binding Buffer (ABB, ONT) before eluting in 15 µl of Elution Buffer (ELB, ONT). (EXP-LLB001, ONT), 12 µl adapted and tethered library and 12.5 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing was done using the software programme MinKNOW software (ONT).
Bio-informatics analyses. Raw reads were produced by MinKNOW. Live basecalling was enabled for the first experiment using MinKNOW version 1.5.5. In the second experiment, basecalling was done after the sequencing run using Albacore (version 1.2.5., ONT). Quality scores and read lengths were visualized using NanoPlot, followed by quality filtering with NanoFilt 63 . Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were omitted. Sequences were then analyzed using different BLAST methods including BLASTn and tBLASTx (BLAST version 2.6.0; e-value cut-off 1e −3 -1e −10 ) to compare sensitivity and run-times to detect viral sequences among the reads. A complete viral database was composed of all virus sequences in GenBank (taxonomy ID 10239, containing sequences up to 17th of September 2017). The best hit (lowest e-value) was visualized using KronaTools 64 . Reads matching viruses were extracted using Seqtk (https://github.com/lh3/seqtk) and used in downstream analyses. GraphMap (version 0.5.2) and Samtools (version 1.6) were used for mapping of reads against reference sequences, while Canu 1.6 was used for de novo assembly of viral genomes [65] [66] [67] [68] . VirSorter was run using the 'Viromes' database to look for phages, with the Virome Decontamination Mode on to identify phage contigs 54 . Bio-informatics analyses were executed on a local computer cluster and the high-performance computing facilities of Ghent University. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Sanger sequencing of porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the sample 17V079 using the MinION. The sequence of the 3D gene of porcine kobuvirus encodes the polymerase and is considered to be most conserved among different strains. The exact nucleotide sequence of this virus was verified using reverse transcripion polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing, as low coverage was obtained with MinION. RT-PCR was executed using the OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen) with the newly designed primers Kobu_6049Fw and Kobu_7524Rv (IDT DNA Technologies) ( Table 2 ). The RT-PCR reaction contained 5 µl 5 × Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Buffer, 1 µl dNTPs, 3 µl of each primer (10 µm), 7 µl nuclease-free water, 1 µl OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix and 5 µl template RNA or water (total reaction volume of 25 µl). RT-PCR conditions were as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 15 min, followed by 30 cycles of amplification (94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72° for 90 s) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Reactions were held at 10 °C prior to loading 5 µl PCR product with 1 µl of loading dye in a 1.5% agarose gel. Electrophoresis was conducted for 30 min at 100 V and PCR product was visualized by ethidium bromide staining and UV light. The amplicon was sent to GATC (Constance, Germany) for Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer system. Quality control of the raw chromatograms was done using 4Peaks (Nucleobytes BV, The Netherlands) and BLASTn (NCBI, United States).
Specific RT-qPCR primers (Table 2) for the porcine kobuvirus polymerase-encoding gene were designed using Primerquest and Oligoanalyzer (IDT DNA Technologies) to allow exact quantification in feces of piglets. Each RT-qPCR reaction consisted of 10 µl PrecisionPlus OneStep qRT-PCR Mastermix containing SYBR Green, ROX and an inert blue pipetting dye (Primerdesign, Southampton, United Kingdom), 0.4 µl of each primer (200 nM) and 6.2 µl nuclease-free water. Three microliters of template RNA or water were added to each tube containing 17 µl mastermix. A synthetic RNA positive control (175nt) was generated by RT-PCR using the primers Kobu3D_qPCR +T7_Fw and Kobu3D_qPCR_Rv, followed by in vitro transcription of this PCR product using a T7 RNA polymerase. The positive control was measured using Nanodrop and used to setup a standard curve over a linear dynamic range (LDR) from six to one log 10 copies/reaction. Reaction conditions were as follows: 55 °C for 10 min and 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95 °C for 10 s) and annealing (58 °C for 60 s). Detection of SYBR Green fluorescence was done at the end of each annealing phase. A melt curve analysis was executed to assess specificity of the amplicons generated. Each dilution point in the standard curve and each sample was tested in duplicates. Amplicons were analyzed once on an agarose gel to assess the correct length of the amplicon and Sanger sequencing was conducted to confirm the amplification of the partial porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. Assays were valid if the efficiency over the LDR was between 90 and 110%, and R 2 of the standard curve replicates was >0.99. Quantification of the viral loads was possible if the Cq-values of two qPCR replicates fell within the LDR of the assay. Both replicates had to be positive for a sample to be considered as positive. If the Cq-values of specific amplicons have fallen behind the lowest point of the standard curve, the sample was considered positive but not quantifiable. Longitudinal investigation of kobuvirus and rotavirus shedding in suckling piglets. Upon characterization of the virome with the MinION, a longitudinal follow-up study was setup between August and September 2017. To warrant the health status of the pig stock, entrance to the farm was strictly regulated. Sampling was performed by the farmer. Detailed instructions and sampling materials were provided to the farmer. Sample collection in the longitudinal field study was done in agreement with the European legislation on animal experiments. Sample collection was approved by and done in accordance to the requirements of the Local Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University. One day after parturition of the sows, five litters were selected at random. Within each litter, one piglet was identified for longitudinal follow-up during the entire suckling period. A dry cotton rectal swab (Copan) was collected from each individual piglet at days 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 after birth. The swab was placed immediately in 2 ml of viral transport medium (phosphate buffered saline containing 1000 U/ml penicillin (Continental Pharma, Puurs, Belgium), 1 mg/ml streptomycin (Certa, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium), 1 mg/ml gentamicin (Life Technologies) and 0.01% v/v Fungizone (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium)) in a sterile 15 ml falcon tube (Sarstedt) and stored at −20 °C. Every week, samples were collected from the farm and transported to the Laboratory of Virology. The farmer was asked to mark the tube of each sample for presence or absence of diarrheic signs. Upon arrival in the Laboratory of Virology, the samples were thawed and placed on a shaker for 30 min at 4 °C to release viral particles in the transport medium. Samples were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified nucleic acids were eluted in 100 µl of AVE and stored at −70 °C until RT-qPCR analysis. RT-qPCR analysis was conducted, as described above, to quantify porcine kobuvirus genome copies per swab. Furthermore, RVA and RVC shedding was assessed using previously described in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61 .
Belgian suckling pigs. Fecal samples (n = 44) of diarrheic suckling piglets less than 2 weeks old were sent to a private laboratory by veterinarians (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) for etiological diagnosis, as described earlier.
These samples were collected in 2014 and stored at −70 °C in the laboratory. They had previously been evaluated for the presence of rotaviruses using RT-qPCR 25 . RNA extraction was conducted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit (Qiagen) as described above and RT-qPCR was done to quantify the load of kobuvirus RNA copies. Samples with a quantifiable viral load were subjected to RT-PCR to amplify the 3D polymerase gene, after which Sanger sequencing was performed. The sequences encoding the polymerase of 11 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates were deposited into GenBank with accession numbers MH184664-MH184674. The sequences were used to conduct a multiple sequence alignment together with other porcine kobuvirus strains in MEGA 7 using the ClustalW plug-in 69 . A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with RAxML using a general time reversible model with gamma distribution (20 cats, alpha: 0.121, LogLK = 14938.461) and heuristic branch swapping 70 . Tree editing was done using Affinity Designer (Serif). Pairwise distances were calculated using the p-distance model in Mega with bootstrap values set at 500 replicates. | What was the range of genomic sequencing depths? | 5,288 | 19.2 to 103.5X | 931 |
1,666 | Nanopore sequencing as a revolutionary diagnostic tool for porcine viral enteric disease complexes identifies porcine kobuvirus as an important enteric virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026206/
SHA: eff8bed68ef6109e8f0c51a8b1ec4b6ca5b6329e
Authors: Theuns, Sebastiaan; Vanmechelen, Bert; Bernaert, Quinten; Deboutte, Ward; Vandenhole, Marilou; Beller, Leen; Matthijnssens, Jelle; Maes, Piet; Nauwynck, Hans J.
Date: 2018-06-29
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9
License: cc-by
Abstract: Enteric diseases in swine are often caused by different pathogens and thus metagenomics are a useful tool for diagnostics. The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics were investigated here. First, cell culture-grown porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and rotavirus A were pooled and sequenced on a MinION. Reads were already detected at 7 seconds after start of sequencing, resulting in high sequencing depths (19.2 to 103.5X) after 3 h. Next, diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet was analyzed. Almost all reads (99%) belonged to bacteriophages, which may have reshaped the piglet’s microbiome. Contigs matched Bacteroides, Escherichia and Enterococcus phages. Moreover, porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the feces for the first time in Belgium. Suckling piglets shed kobuvirus from one week of age, but an association between peak of viral shedding (10(6.42)–10(7.01) copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed during a follow-up study. Retrospective analysis showed the widespread (n = 25, 56.8% positive) of genetically moderately related kobuviruses among Belgian diarrheic piglets. MinION enables rapid detection of enteric viruses. Such new methodologies will change diagnostics, but more extensive validations should be conducted. The true enteric pathogenicity of porcine kobuvirus should be questioned, while its subclinical importance cannot be excluded.
Text: metagenomics is a valuable asset for diagnostics in pigs, leading to discovery of novel viruses and identification of porcine viral enteric disease complexes. Although standardized procedures have been developed to study viral metagenomes in fecal samples, they still require an extensive sample preparation, including random or targeted pre-amplification of viral genomes present in the sample 13 . Most sequencing platforms still require capital investments and high sample turnover rates to be cost-effective. Performing the necessary analyses often results in long time periods between sample arrival and diagnostic reporting, since results can only be processed after finishing the sequencing run. Third-generation sequencing using MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ONT) might be a useful and affordable diagnostic tool for swine veterinary medicine as it allows rapid sample preparation and real-time sequence analysis. The flowcells used for sequencing consist of a membrane containing multiple CsgG nanopore proteins from Escherichia coli 14 . An ion current is established through this pore resulting in typical current changes upon passage of specific nucleotides. This signal is converted into a nucleotide sequence by computational algorithms (basecalling). Since the release of MinION technology, major advances have been made in terms of the number and the quality of reads generated 15 . In the field of virology, the technology has mainly been applied in human medicine. Using nanopore sequencing, it was possible to distinguish three poxviruses with 98% nucleotide similarity at strain level 16 . MinION has also been used as a diagnostic tool during recent Ebolavirus outbreaks in West Africa, allowing fast on-site characterization of circulating strains 17, 18 . Coupled to a laptop-based bioinformatics workflow, MinION was able to detect Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus and hepatitis C virus in less than 6 hours using earlier versions of the technology 19 . A multiplex PCR method for complete on-site Zikavirus genome sequencing in samples with low viral loads has recently been developed by Quick and coworkers 20 . Partial dengue virus genomes were isothermally amplified followed by sequencing, allowing classification of strains in serotypes 21 . In veterinary virology, the use of nanopore sequencing is growing. A novel species of papillomavirus was identified in warts from giraffes, using rolling-circle amplification and nanopore sequencing 22 . The entire genome of a parapoxvirus isolated from a seal was obtained by combining data from Illumina next-generation sequencing with nanopore sequencing data 23 . One study has reported the detection of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from unamplified cDNA created from poly-A tailed RNA using cell culture grown viruses 24 . To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first using MinION as an aid in porcine health management. This study was aimed to explore the possibilities of MinION as a rapid and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in pig health management for diagnosis of viral enteric disease complexes. The ability to detect high loads of cell culture-grown rotavirus and coronavirus, mimicking shedding quantities observed in diarrheic piglets, was evaluated. In a second case, the ability to detect (novel) viruses in diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet with diarrhea was investigated. No gene-specific or random pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids was conducted to challenge the MinION's sensitivity. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the latter case and a longitudinal field study was conducted hereafter to elucidate the shedding patterns of this virus. Moreover, archival (2014) fecal samples from diarrheic suckling piglets less than two weeks old were investigated for the presence of kobuviruses, to study their epidemiology in Belgium.
be performed for 243,313 reads with a mean length of 740 nucleotides. Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were filtered out, resulting in 179,015 remaining sequences (mean length 816 nt) for use in downstream analyses. Results of the sequencing run, including taxonomical classification and mapping of reads against PEDV and rotavirus A (RVA) reference genomes are shown in Fig. 1A . After 24 hours of sequencing, a total of 15,232 reads were classified as viral by sensitive tBLASTx comparison against a complete viral database. Of these, 39.3% (n = 5,985) and 10.3% (n = 1,564) were assigned to viral families comprising Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (family Coronaviridae) and Rotavirus (family Reoviridae, subfamily Sedoreovirinae), respectively. A fraction of the reads (29.3%, n = 4,468) were assigned to order Caudovirales. These reads originated from the lambda phage DNA used in a previous control run on the same flowcell. At 7.5 and 24.2 seconds after the start of sequencing, respectively, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were translocated through a nanopore. Most reads were generated in the first twelve hours of sequencing and read accumulation was most exponential in the first three hours of sequencing (Fig. 1B) . PEDV and RVA sequences were extracted from the dataset and mapped against viral reference genes to calculate sequencing depths over time (Fig. 1C) . After one hour, sequencing depths were higher for PEDV (43.0X) than for RVA (4.9 to 22.1X). High sequencing depths were acquired after three hours of sequencing for PEDV (103.5X) and for most RVA gene segments (19.2 to 48.2X).
De novo assembly was executed on the quality-filtered reads prior to identification (tBLASTx) to recover viral genomes. This resulted in the recovery of the almost complete PEDV genome and RVA gene segments with identities varying between 95 and 99% compared to the reference genes (Table 1) . Higher assembly accuracies (97 to 99%) were obtained when only the reads matching against rotavirus and PEDV were included for de novo assembly (Table 1) . However, execution of de novo assembly prior to taxonomical classification (tBLASTx) reduced the time to identify entire viral genomes in the dataset.
Virome composition of a young diarrheic piglet using nanopore sequencing. A total of 30,088 reads were generated by sequencing the diarrheic fecal sample for three hours. Of these, 25,466 reads (q-score >7, mean read length 653 nt) were used for further analyses. Different methods were used to compare the reads against a viral database using the HPC cluster of Ghent University and results are shown in Fig. 2 . Comparison against a complete viral database resulted in the detection of 6,781 to 8,677 potential viral reads, depending on the BLAST settings. BLASTn resulted in rapid taxonomical identification of reads at almost similar sensitivity compared to tBLASTx. However, there was a very high difference between wall times on the HPC cluster, with only 26 seconds of analysis time for BLASTn, versus almost 24 hours for tBLASTx. The majority of sequences were assigned to bacteriophages within the order Caudovirales and families Siphoviridae (n = 3,213 to 4,163 reads), Podoviridae (n = 2,506 to 3,002 reads) and Myoviridae (n = 912 to 1,202 reads). A de novo assembly was executed on the basecalled, quality filtered reads and the resulting contigs were used as input material for VirSorter analysis. Nineteen contigs were classified as sure (n = 4; category 1), somewhat sure (=14; category 2) and not so sure (=1; category 3) to be phage-like contigs (Fig. 2B) . Comparison of these contigs against the GenBank database using BLAST allowed classification into four different groups. Ten contigs showed moderate to high nucleotide similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, suggesting that they all belonged to one phage genome. This was also supported by the fact that all these contigs mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Bacteroides phage B124-14 (data not shown). The longest contig with a size of 39,069 nucleotides, together with four other contigs showed similarities (95% nt identity) to different Escherichia phages. As they also mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Escherichia phage vB_EcoP_PhAPEC7, it seems that they must also belong to one phage genome (data not shown). Two contigs showed poor similarity to both the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME_196, isolated from hospital sewage in China from an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and the Enterococcus hirae bacterial genome. The latter might be a prophage inserted in the bacterial genome. Interestingly, three contigs were identified for which no similarities were found with existing viruses in GenBank, but contig 0105 mapped to the reference genome of the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME196 (data not shown). These might be novel phages or divergent variants from existing phages present in GenBank.
Three eukaryotic porcine viruses, porcine kobuvirus (n = 18 to 22 reads), enterovirus G (n = 5 to 9 reads) and astrovirus (n = 4 reads) were found at much lower abundancies. The genera Kobuvirus and Enterovirus belong to the family Picornaviridae, whereas the genus Mamastrovirus belongs to the family Astroviridae. Kobuvirus reads were mapped against a European reference strain S-1/HUN/2007/Hungary, as shown in Fig. 2C . However, full-genome coverage at high sequencing depth was not obtained.
Shedding of porcine kobuvirus and rotaviruses in suckling piglets. The shedding of porcine kobuvirus, RVA and rotavirus C (RVC) was quantitatively investigated in 5 suckling pigs of the same farm from which the diarrheic feces originated. The fecal shedding patterns of the different viruses and presence of diarrheic signs are shown in Fig. 3A . All piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus at the end of the first week after parturition. In two piglets (A and D) the shedding was sustained and lasted for at least 2 weeks (above the limit of quantification). Peak shedding titers of the porcine kobuvirus varied between 6.42 and 7.01 log 10 copies/swab, which is generally lower than peak shedding observed for typical enteric viruses such as rotavirus and PEDV. Moreover, the peak of shedding was not related to diarrheic episodes, questioning the role of this virus in the pathogenesis of diarrhea on the farm. Diarrheic signs were only noticed in two piglets (A and B). In piglet B, an association between high RVC shedding and diarrheic episodes was observed. In contrast, there was no direct association between peak shedding of kobuvirus and diarrheic episodes. Interestingly, a peak in kobuvirus shedding was observed in piglet C at day 11 post-farrowing. This animal died shortly hereafter, but it was unclear if this can be attributable to the kobuvirus infection. Acute RVA shedding was observed at the end of the suckling period in three of five piglets, even though all sows were vaccinated before farrowing using a bovine inactivated rotavirus vaccine.
Retrospective analysis of porcine kobuviruses shedding in Belgian diarrheic suckling pigs and phylogenetic analysis. A total of 44 diarrheic fecal samples collected in 2014 were screened for the presence of kobuvirus using the new RT-qPCR. Of these, 25 samples (56.8%) tested positive and 18 samples showed quantifiable viral loads (4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/swab). Seven samples were positive, but viral loads were too low to allow accurate quantification. The presence of RVA and RVC had been quantitatively assessed in these samples in a previous study and the occurrence of co-infections between rotaviruses and kobuvirus is shown in Fig. 3B 25 . Kobuvirus was found in equal ratios in rotavirus-negative and -positive samples. Twelve samples contained a single rotavirus infection with a high RVA load and in four of these, a high kobuvirus load (5.16 to 5.42 log 10 copies/g) was observed. A single RVC infection was found in seven samples and in four of these tested positive for kobuvirus at high loads (4.31 to 5.59 log 10 copies/g). A dual RVA/RVC infection was seen in two samples, but neither contained quantifiable kobuvirus loads. Many (n = 10) of the rotavirus-negative samples contained high kobuvirus loads.
Strain 17V079 showed high similarity to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates from 2014 (92.1 to 94.0% nucleotide sequence identity) and the Hungarian reference strain S-1/Hun/2017 (93.4%). Furthermore, there was a high level of genetic variability between the 2014 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates, with nucleotide sequence identities ranging between 90.1 and 97.2%. A phylogenetic analysis, using the 3D gene of 17V079 and twelve Belgian isolates from 2014 ( Fig. 3C) , shows the Belgian strains clustering between strains from different geographical locations.
Prevention and treatment of enteric disease problems in young piglets is frequently hampered by a lack of diagnostic tools. Veterinarians are restricted to a short list of known viruses, bacteria, parasites and management factors to define a differential diagnosis. Only the most likely cause(s) of the disease will be diagnostically investigated, often leading to negative, inconclusive or incomplete results. However, metagenomics studies have indicated the existence of viral enteric disease complexes, potentially involving multiple known and novel viruses 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 . Detection of nucleic acids from pathogens using NGS-based metagenomics approaches is a partial solution to diagnostic testing problems and can provide a complete readout of viruses and other pathogens present in a sample. However, most NGS platforms require large investments and processing of the reads can only start at the end of the sequencing run. Viral metagenomics also requires extensive laboratory preparations, including centrifugation, filtration and nuclease treatment to discard bacterial and host nucleic acids that make up to the bulk of all nucleic acids present 13 . Furthermore, the amount of viral nucleic acids in a sample is very low, requiring targeted or random amplification of these genomes before NGS analysis. Amplification may induce bias and hampers the development of a fast diagnostic pipelines due to considerable time loss. All these factors lead to a long turnover time between sample collection and diagnostic reporting. The third-generation sequencing device MinION (ONT), holds promise as a diagnostic platform, as it allows real-time sequencing and analyses of all DNA/RNA in a sample, theoretically without needing pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate this technology for use as a rapid tool for porcine viral enteric disease complex identification, without the conduction of viral nucleic acid amplification. In a first experiment, cell culture-grown PEDV and RVA, known to induce diarrhea in young pigs, were pooled at high loads mimicking shedding quantities in diarrheic piglets. Sequencing of this pooled sample with the MinION resulted in rapid identification of both viruses. Real-time analysis of the sequencing reads was not conducted, but is achievable as previously demonstrated by Greninger and colleagues using the SURPI analysis pipeline for rapid identification of human viruses from different clinical matrices 19 . Interestingly, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were generated respectively after 7 and 24 seconds of sequencing. High sequencing depths (43.0X) were acquired within one hour of sequencing for PEDV and within three hours for most of the eleven RVA gene segments (19.2-48.2X). Overall, higher sequencing depths were generated for PEDV that could indicate that sequencing of longer viral genomes is favored over smaller gene segments, as PEDV has a genome size of approximately 28 kb, and RVA gene segments are shorter (0.6 to 3.3 kb). This bias might have been introduced during the ligation of the sequencing adapters to the viral nucleic acids. It can be hypothesized that adapters are more easily attached to longer DNA fragments, and bias should be avoided by standardization of viral nucleic acid input length. Rapid read generation allows flexible use of the sequencing platform and sequences can be read until enough genome information of the viruses of interest is available. While the technology can be useful for giving fast readouts of viruses (<3 hours) present in a sample, thorough validation, using well-defined virus stocks, spiking experiments in matrices (e.g. feces) and real clinical samples is necessary to make sure that all members of the porcine viral enteric disease complex are accurately being diagnosed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the technology needs further improvement, as error rates of contigs from de novo assemblies still ranged between 1 and 5%, hindering the precise analysis of subtle but important mutations in the viral genome.
After the successful identification of the cell culture-grown viruses, the performance of the MinION was further explored by analyzing a diarrheic fecal sample of a one-week-old suckling piglet. Real-time PCR analyses were conducted for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV. Enterococcus hirae was isolated at a private diagnostic laboratory, but this bacterial species is not considered a typical cause of diarrheic disease in pigs 26 . Viral metagenomics was conducted on this sample using the MinION and two different BLAST search algorithms were used to taxonomically identify the reads by comparing them against a complete viral database. Overall, tBLASTx with an e-value of 10 −3 was able to identify the most viral reads compared to other search options conducted. However, BLASTn search options also reached high sensitivity, but at much lower time cost: 26 seconds instead of almost 24 hours. For rapid read analysis and searching for closely related non-divergent viral sequences, BLASTn or another fast methodology should thus be preferentially used. However, tBLASTx might pick up more divergent or novel viruses, improving overall sensitivity.
Three porcine viruses, including porcine kobuvirus, porcine mamastrovirus and enterovirus G, were identified in sample 17V079. Astro-and enteroviruses have been detected earlier in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic feces of Belgian pigs and in feces from pigs around the globe 9,10,27 . In a recent study from Thailand, the difference in prevalence of astrovirus in diarrheic (8.4%) versus non-diarrheic (4.6%) piglets less than 4-weeks-old was not statistically significant. Also other studies have shown that the role of porcine astrovirus in the pathogenesis of pig diarrhea is not completely clear 28 . In contrast, associations between diarrhea and human astrovirus infections have been made 29 . A recent study in 5 European countries (Hungary, Spain, Germany, Austria and Sweden) have indicated the widespread of porcine astroviruses in the swine population. A one hundred procent prevalence of astrovirus was found in diarrheic and non-diarrheic pigs from Austria and Spain. Porcine astroviruses have recently also been linked to outbreaks of neurological disorders in weaned piglets from Hungary, and in 5-week-old pigs and sows in the United States 30, 31 . The gut might be a hypothetical entry port for such neurological astrovirus infections.
Enteroviruses have been more generally linked to neurological disorders in pigs, although they are commonly found in feces as well 11, 12, [32] [33] [34] . In a study from Vietnam, no significant correlation was found between diarrhea status and presence of enterovirus G in feces 35 . The involvement of both astro-and enteroviruses in the pathogenesis of enteric disorders might be questioned here, but cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, while sensitive tBLASTx searches were used here, there is still a possibility that a completely novel virus might be present in the dark matter of the sequencing reads. However, reporting of a porcine kobuvirus in Belgian piglets with MinION is unique. In Belgium, kobuviruses had previously only been found in diarrheic samples of calves and young cattle in Belgium 36 . In the present study, a novel RT-qPCR assay, targeting the conserved 3D gene encoding the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, was developed and used to assess, for the first time, longitudinal quantitative shedding kinetics of porcine kobuvirus in pigs under field conditions. Similar kinetics were also analyzed for porcine rotavirus A and C. While suckling piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus from one week of age, an association between peak viral shedding (6.42 to 7.01 log 10 copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed. In one pig, an association was made between diarrheic episodes and the peak of rotavirus C shedding, a well-known enteric pathogen 37, 38 . Very interestingly, kobuvirus fecal loads were typically lower than those reported of well-described enteric viruses of which the pathogenicity has been proven using piglet infection models, such as PEDV and rotavirus [39] [40] [41] . Similar viral loads for porcine kobuvirus were also found in case (4.60 ± 1.76 copies/qPCR reaction) and control pigs (4.79 ± 1.72 copies/qPCR reaction) during a recent Danish study to evaluate the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of the new neonatal porcine diarrhea syndrome. The study demonstrated that kobuvirus, astrovirus, rotavirus A, porcine teschovirus, porcine norovirus and porcine coronaviruses were not involved in the pathogenesis of the syndrome 42 . The finding of low kobuvirus loads in feces casts doubt over the true enteric pathogenic tropism of the virus. Hypothetically, its replication is likely not distributed across the whole villus but limited to either enterocytes at the villus' tips or to immune cells present in the gut. The presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum has also been demonstrated in Hungarian pigs, but it was not known if the virus is also replicating in other organs 43 . Both the oro-fecal route and the feeding of milk to sucklings pigs could be involved in virus transmission. Highest rates of infection were observed in suckling piglets, compared to older pigs, in other countries [44] [45] [46] . In our study, relatively long shedding of porcine kobuvirus was observed in three out of five animals, which may indicate that this virus may induce persistent infections. A 2011 Brazilian study demonstrated the presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum from 3-day-old piglets, which had disappeared by day 21, indicating viral clearance from the blood and excluding systemic persistence 45 . A complete lack of pathogenicity cannot be excluded, as porcine kobuviruses might play a role as a subclinically important virus. Such subclinical, yet immunosuppressive, properties have been attributed to the economically important swine pathogen porcine circovirus 47 . Of interest, one of the piglets died at the peak of kobuvirus shedding, although it was not clear if there was any causality between virus replication and the piglet's death. In vivo animal experiments in a model of neonatal, conventional kobuvirus-negative piglets should be conducted to elucidate the pathogenesis of porcine kobuviruses. Attempts were made to isolate the virus in different cell lines (MA104, ST and SK), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. There was no evidence of cytopathogenic effect after several days of incubation. Antibodies to visualize antigen expression were not available and therefore the possibility of replication without SCIenTIFIC REPORTS | (2018) 8:9830 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9 evident cytopathogenic effect cannot be ruled out. Efforts will be made to isolate the virus in porcine primary enterocyte cultures, once available.
To assess more broadly the prevalence of kobuvirus in the Belgian swine industry, a retrospective analysis of diarrheic samples from suckling piglets less than two weeks old was conducted. A high proportion (40.9%) of the samples (n = 44) contained quantifiable viral loads ranging between 4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/g feces. Viral loads found were thus comparable to the loads excreted by piglets in the longitudinal analysis and the above-mentioned study from Denmark, demonstrating the endemic presence of the virus in the Belgian swine population 42 .
In the present study, non-diarrheic piglets were not included and therefore no association between kobuvirus prevalence and disease can be made. However, the prevalence of kobuvirus has been widely described in pigs from several European countries (The Netherlands (16.7%), Slovakia (63.4%), Hungary (81.0%), Czech Republic (87.3%), Austria (46.2%), Italy (52.4%), Germany (54.5%) and Sweden (45.0%)), American countries (The United States (21.9%) and Brazil (53.0%)), African countries (Kenya (14.9%) and Uganda (15.5%)) and Asian countries (Thailand (99%), South Korea (52.1%) and Vietnam (29.3%)) [44] [45] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . In a small proportion of these studies, statistically significant associations between prevalence of kobuvirus and diarrhea in pigs were demonstrated, such as in Hungary (54.5% prevalence in healthy pigs vs 92.3% prevalence in diarrheic pigs), Spain (47.5% healthy vs 74.4% diarrheic), Brazil (41% vs 78.4%), Thailand (19.3% vs 84.5%) and Vietnam (27.6% to 40.9%) 35, 45, 46, 52 . Indeed, it is difficult to make correlations between prevalence of the virus and diarrhea, as the pathogenicity of the virus could be largely influenced by other factors such as co-infections with other enteric viruses, microbiota and management factors.
Belgian isolates showed genetic moderate to high genetic variability, with nucleotide identities between 90.1 and 97.2%. Furthermore, they clustered diffusely between strains from different countries around the world, indicating that strains are not distinguishable based on their geographical origin.
Because most (99%) of the reads generated during sequencing of the fecal sample 17V079 matched bacteriophages upon analysis with BLAST, bacteriophages may have played an important role in the pathogenesis of the diarrheic disease. De novo assembled contigs were analyzed using VirSorter, a software package for mining viral signals from microbial genomic data. Such tools allow maximizing the possibility of detecting dsDNA phages 54 . Several contigs showed high similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, found in municipal wastewater and human fecal samples. It was shown to be absent in 30 samples collected from different animal species, including pigs, and is therefore considered a human-specific phage 55, 56 . The finding of several contigs, genetically similar to phage B124 and likely belonging to one phage genome, indicates that this phage found in the pig fecal sample may also replicate in the microbiome of the young pig gut and not solely in humans. However, it is possible that the phage's replication ability in the pig's gut is age-dependent and that very young age groups were not sampled in previous studies. Interestingly, several of the contigs found also showed similarities to Escherichia phages. Two of the contigs were similar to Escherichia phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7, isolated from Belgian rivers in the neighborhood of poultry houses and known to cause lytic infections in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Electron microscopic images of the phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7 indicated that they belonged to the family Podoviridae 57 . Two other contigs were similar to two closely related Escherichia phages, St11Ph5 and G7C, found in sewage and horse feces, respectively 58 . Finally, one contig showed limited similarity to an Enterococcus phage, isolated from hospital sewage in China, while a last contig showed moderate similaraties to the bacterial Enterococcus hirae genome. This region may be a prophage, inserted in the bacterial genome.
The phages found in this piglet may have reshaped the gut microbiota, allowing opportunistic bacteria such as Enterococcus hirae to proliferate and to start secreting toxins. It is also possible that a phage infection of bacteria in the pig's gut led to a stress status for these bacteria, prompting the secretion of toxins. The new neonatal diarrhea syndrome described above shows high similarities to the disease described in the case 17V079 and it may be that bacteriophages are involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. So far, the role of phages has not been considered in the pathogenesis of several enteric disorders, but given the high abundance here, it should be in future studies.
It is clear that new technologies will change the way diagnostics are be performed in the near future. Pricing might currently be an aspect hampering high-troughput analysis of samples in swine veterinary medicine, but as the technology evolves fast, this might become very soon less relevant. Complete overviews of all viruses and other pathogens in a sample will be given in a single readout instead of requiring different diagnostic assays. However, care should be given to the interpretation of such results, as they should only be analyzed by trained veterinarians.
Viruses. Porcine rotavirus A (RVA) strain RVA/Pig-tc/BEL/12R046/2012/G9P [23] was isolated from a diarrheic piglet and grown for three successive passages in MA104 cells to an infectious virus titer of 10 7.8 CCID 50 / ml. The nucleotide sequences of the 11 gene segments of this strain were resolved earlier using Sanger sequencing (GenBank accession numbers: KM82070 (VP1), KM820707 (VP2), KM827014 (VP3), KM820720 (VP4), KM820728 (VP6), KM820735 (VP7), KM820742 (NSP1), KM820672 (NSP2), KM820679 (NSP3), KM820686 (NSP4) and KM820693 (NSP5)) 59 . A porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV, CV777) isolated in Belgium in the 1970s was adapted for growth in Vero cells in the 1980s 60 . In our Laboratory, the virus was grown to an infectious virus titer of 10 6.0 CCID 50 /ml (GenBank accession number: AF353511).
Origin of a fecal sample from diarrheic suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample was collected from a Belgian pig on a farm housing a total of 620 sows and using a 2-week batch-production system, with a weaning age of 23 days. Topigs Norsvin sows were crossed with Piétrain boars, producing 32. toxins (Suiseng, Hipra). Rotavirus A vaccination was done off-label with an inactivated bovine rotavirus A vaccine (Lactovac, Zoetis). Until recently, diarrheic problems were rarely present in suckling piglets and also very low mortality percentages (6.2-7.1%) were observed. Since the spring of 2017, enteric disease started causing more severe problems accompanied with mortality on this farm, mainly in 7-days-old suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample of such a piglet was investigated at a private diagnostic laboratory (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) and labeled 17V079. No virological cause was found to explain the diarrheic problems on the farm. The only isolated bacterium was Enterococcus hirae. This bacterium was thereon added to the sow vaccination schedule (inactivated autovaccine). No other pathogens were found in this sample. As the clinical picture hinted at a viral cause for the disease, the sample was sent to the Laboratory of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Ghent University) for further analysis. The sample tested negative for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV using in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61, 62 . Therefore, it was decided to perform a metagenomics analysis with MinION described in this study.
Purification of viral nucleic acids. First, viral enrichment was done based on the NetoVIR protocol to obtain pure viral nucleic acids for sequencing library preparation 13 . MinION analyses of cell culture grown viruses RVA and PEDV were conducted at the Laboratory of Clinical Virology (Rega Institute, KU Leuven), whereas the diarrheic fecal sample was analyzed at the Laboratory of Virology (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University). RVA and PEDV stocks were centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 3 min. The supernatant of both suspensions was diluted to 6 log 10 CCID 50 /ml and 500 µl of each suspension was mixed to reach an equal concentration of both viruses. This mixture was filtered using a 0.8 µm polyethersulphone filter for 1 min at 17,000 × g, followed by a nuclease treatment for 2 hours at 37 °C to digest free nucleic acids in the suspension: 250 µl of the sample was added to 14 µl of home-made buffer (1 M Tris, 100 mM CaCl 2 and 30 mM MgCl 2 , pH 8), 4 µl of Benzonase Nuclease (Millipore) and 2 µl Micrococcal Nuclease (NEB) as described earlier 13 . Fourteen microliters of EDTA were added to stop the reaction, followed by extraction of nucleic acids from the viral particles using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). The manufacturer's instructions were followed but no carrier RNA was added and elution was done in 30 µl of AVE to concentrate the viral nucleic acid extract.
The diarrheic fecal sample 17V079 was processed similarly as the cell culture grown viruses, with some minor modifications. A 10% w/v suspension of the diarrhea was made in Minimum Essential Medium and centrifuged. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter (Sarstedt) and treated with Benzonase Nuclease for 1 hour to speed up the diagnostic pipeline. Viral nucleic acids were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions without addition of carrier RNA. Elution was done in a volume of 50 µl. cDNA and second strand synthesis for nanopore sequencing. Nucleic acids were heated at 95 °C for 2 min and chilled on ice to resolve secondary RNA structures and to denature double-stranded RNA. Superscript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) was used to generate cDNA. Ten microliters of template nucleic acids were mixed with 0.5 µl random hexamer primers (Random Primer 6, New England Biolabs), 1 µl dNTP mix (NEB) and 2.5 µl nuclease-free water. Primer annealing was conducted at 65 °C for 5 min, after which 4 µl Superscript IV Reaction Buffer (ThermoScientific), 1 µl dithiothreitol (ThermoScientific) and 1 µl SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) were added in a total reaction volume of 20 µl. The reaction conditions were as follows: 23 °C for 10 min, 50 °C for 10 min, 80 °C for 10 min and an infinite hold step at 10 °C.
A second strand of DNA was generated from single stranded (c)DNA molecules using the NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Kit (NEB). Twenty microliters cDNA reaction mixture were added to 10 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Reaction Buffer, 5 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Enzyme Mix and 45 µl nuclease-free water (80 µl total reaction volume). Isothermal amplification was done at 16 °C for 1 h and double-stranded nucleic acids were purified using 144 µl of magnetic AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter). Two washing steps with freshly prepared 70% ethanol were conducted before eluting in 52 µl nuclease-free water.
Nanopore sequencing library preparation. A deoxyadenosine was ligated to the 3′-end of double-stranded nucleic acids to allow binding of complimentary sequencing adapters. Fifty microliters of (un) amplified DNA were mixed with 7 µl Ultra II End-Prep Reaction Buffer (New England Biolabs) and 3 µl Ultra II End-prep enzyme mix (New England Biolabs), and incubated at 20 °C for 5 min and 65 °C for 5 min. Next, nucleic acids were purified using 60 µl AMPure XP Beads and eluted in 31 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing adapters, provided with the Ligation Sequencing Kit 1D (R9.4) (SQK-LSK108, ONT), were ligated to the dA-tailed nucleic acids. End-prepped DNA (30 µl) was mixed with 20 µl adapter mix (AMX, ONT) and 50 µl Blunt/TA Ligation Master Mix (New England Biolabs) in a total reaction volume of 100 µl and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The sequencing library, containing double-stranded DNA with adapters ligated to the 3′ ends, was then purified using 40 µl AMPure XP beads. Two washing steps were conducted using 140 µl Adapter Bead Binding Buffer (ABB, ONT) before eluting in 15 µl of Elution Buffer (ELB, ONT). (EXP-LLB001, ONT), 12 µl adapted and tethered library and 12.5 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing was done using the software programme MinKNOW software (ONT).
Bio-informatics analyses. Raw reads were produced by MinKNOW. Live basecalling was enabled for the first experiment using MinKNOW version 1.5.5. In the second experiment, basecalling was done after the sequencing run using Albacore (version 1.2.5., ONT). Quality scores and read lengths were visualized using NanoPlot, followed by quality filtering with NanoFilt 63 . Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were omitted. Sequences were then analyzed using different BLAST methods including BLASTn and tBLASTx (BLAST version 2.6.0; e-value cut-off 1e −3 -1e −10 ) to compare sensitivity and run-times to detect viral sequences among the reads. A complete viral database was composed of all virus sequences in GenBank (taxonomy ID 10239, containing sequences up to 17th of September 2017). The best hit (lowest e-value) was visualized using KronaTools 64 . Reads matching viruses were extracted using Seqtk (https://github.com/lh3/seqtk) and used in downstream analyses. GraphMap (version 0.5.2) and Samtools (version 1.6) were used for mapping of reads against reference sequences, while Canu 1.6 was used for de novo assembly of viral genomes [65] [66] [67] [68] . VirSorter was run using the 'Viromes' database to look for phages, with the Virome Decontamination Mode on to identify phage contigs 54 . Bio-informatics analyses were executed on a local computer cluster and the high-performance computing facilities of Ghent University. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Sanger sequencing of porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the sample 17V079 using the MinION. The sequence of the 3D gene of porcine kobuvirus encodes the polymerase and is considered to be most conserved among different strains. The exact nucleotide sequence of this virus was verified using reverse transcripion polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing, as low coverage was obtained with MinION. RT-PCR was executed using the OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen) with the newly designed primers Kobu_6049Fw and Kobu_7524Rv (IDT DNA Technologies) ( Table 2 ). The RT-PCR reaction contained 5 µl 5 × Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Buffer, 1 µl dNTPs, 3 µl of each primer (10 µm), 7 µl nuclease-free water, 1 µl OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix and 5 µl template RNA or water (total reaction volume of 25 µl). RT-PCR conditions were as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 15 min, followed by 30 cycles of amplification (94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72° for 90 s) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Reactions were held at 10 °C prior to loading 5 µl PCR product with 1 µl of loading dye in a 1.5% agarose gel. Electrophoresis was conducted for 30 min at 100 V and PCR product was visualized by ethidium bromide staining and UV light. The amplicon was sent to GATC (Constance, Germany) for Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer system. Quality control of the raw chromatograms was done using 4Peaks (Nucleobytes BV, The Netherlands) and BLASTn (NCBI, United States).
Specific RT-qPCR primers (Table 2) for the porcine kobuvirus polymerase-encoding gene were designed using Primerquest and Oligoanalyzer (IDT DNA Technologies) to allow exact quantification in feces of piglets. Each RT-qPCR reaction consisted of 10 µl PrecisionPlus OneStep qRT-PCR Mastermix containing SYBR Green, ROX and an inert blue pipetting dye (Primerdesign, Southampton, United Kingdom), 0.4 µl of each primer (200 nM) and 6.2 µl nuclease-free water. Three microliters of template RNA or water were added to each tube containing 17 µl mastermix. A synthetic RNA positive control (175nt) was generated by RT-PCR using the primers Kobu3D_qPCR +T7_Fw and Kobu3D_qPCR_Rv, followed by in vitro transcription of this PCR product using a T7 RNA polymerase. The positive control was measured using Nanodrop and used to setup a standard curve over a linear dynamic range (LDR) from six to one log 10 copies/reaction. Reaction conditions were as follows: 55 °C for 10 min and 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95 °C for 10 s) and annealing (58 °C for 60 s). Detection of SYBR Green fluorescence was done at the end of each annealing phase. A melt curve analysis was executed to assess specificity of the amplicons generated. Each dilution point in the standard curve and each sample was tested in duplicates. Amplicons were analyzed once on an agarose gel to assess the correct length of the amplicon and Sanger sequencing was conducted to confirm the amplification of the partial porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. Assays were valid if the efficiency over the LDR was between 90 and 110%, and R 2 of the standard curve replicates was >0.99. Quantification of the viral loads was possible if the Cq-values of two qPCR replicates fell within the LDR of the assay. Both replicates had to be positive for a sample to be considered as positive. If the Cq-values of specific amplicons have fallen behind the lowest point of the standard curve, the sample was considered positive but not quantifiable. Longitudinal investigation of kobuvirus and rotavirus shedding in suckling piglets. Upon characterization of the virome with the MinION, a longitudinal follow-up study was setup between August and September 2017. To warrant the health status of the pig stock, entrance to the farm was strictly regulated. Sampling was performed by the farmer. Detailed instructions and sampling materials were provided to the farmer. Sample collection in the longitudinal field study was done in agreement with the European legislation on animal experiments. Sample collection was approved by and done in accordance to the requirements of the Local Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University. One day after parturition of the sows, five litters were selected at random. Within each litter, one piglet was identified for longitudinal follow-up during the entire suckling period. A dry cotton rectal swab (Copan) was collected from each individual piglet at days 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 after birth. The swab was placed immediately in 2 ml of viral transport medium (phosphate buffered saline containing 1000 U/ml penicillin (Continental Pharma, Puurs, Belgium), 1 mg/ml streptomycin (Certa, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium), 1 mg/ml gentamicin (Life Technologies) and 0.01% v/v Fungizone (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium)) in a sterile 15 ml falcon tube (Sarstedt) and stored at −20 °C. Every week, samples were collected from the farm and transported to the Laboratory of Virology. The farmer was asked to mark the tube of each sample for presence or absence of diarrheic signs. Upon arrival in the Laboratory of Virology, the samples were thawed and placed on a shaker for 30 min at 4 °C to release viral particles in the transport medium. Samples were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified nucleic acids were eluted in 100 µl of AVE and stored at −70 °C until RT-qPCR analysis. RT-qPCR analysis was conducted, as described above, to quantify porcine kobuvirus genome copies per swab. Furthermore, RVA and RVC shedding was assessed using previously described in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61 .
Belgian suckling pigs. Fecal samples (n = 44) of diarrheic suckling piglets less than 2 weeks old were sent to a private laboratory by veterinarians (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) for etiological diagnosis, as described earlier.
These samples were collected in 2014 and stored at −70 °C in the laboratory. They had previously been evaluated for the presence of rotaviruses using RT-qPCR 25 . RNA extraction was conducted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit (Qiagen) as described above and RT-qPCR was done to quantify the load of kobuvirus RNA copies. Samples with a quantifiable viral load were subjected to RT-PCR to amplify the 3D polymerase gene, after which Sanger sequencing was performed. The sequences encoding the polymerase of 11 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates were deposited into GenBank with accession numbers MH184664-MH184674. The sequences were used to conduct a multiple sequence alignment together with other porcine kobuvirus strains in MEGA 7 using the ClustalW plug-in 69 . A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with RAxML using a general time reversible model with gamma distribution (20 cats, alpha: 0.121, LogLK = 14938.461) and heuristic branch swapping 70 . Tree editing was done using Affinity Designer (Serif). Pairwise distances were calculated using the p-distance model in Mega with bootstrap values set at 500 replicates. | Which q-score reads were eliminated from the analysis? | 5,289 | lower than 7 | 5,857 |
1,666 | Nanopore sequencing as a revolutionary diagnostic tool for porcine viral enteric disease complexes identifies porcine kobuvirus as an important enteric virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026206/
SHA: eff8bed68ef6109e8f0c51a8b1ec4b6ca5b6329e
Authors: Theuns, Sebastiaan; Vanmechelen, Bert; Bernaert, Quinten; Deboutte, Ward; Vandenhole, Marilou; Beller, Leen; Matthijnssens, Jelle; Maes, Piet; Nauwynck, Hans J.
Date: 2018-06-29
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9
License: cc-by
Abstract: Enteric diseases in swine are often caused by different pathogens and thus metagenomics are a useful tool for diagnostics. The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics were investigated here. First, cell culture-grown porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and rotavirus A were pooled and sequenced on a MinION. Reads were already detected at 7 seconds after start of sequencing, resulting in high sequencing depths (19.2 to 103.5X) after 3 h. Next, diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet was analyzed. Almost all reads (99%) belonged to bacteriophages, which may have reshaped the piglet’s microbiome. Contigs matched Bacteroides, Escherichia and Enterococcus phages. Moreover, porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the feces for the first time in Belgium. Suckling piglets shed kobuvirus from one week of age, but an association between peak of viral shedding (10(6.42)–10(7.01) copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed during a follow-up study. Retrospective analysis showed the widespread (n = 25, 56.8% positive) of genetically moderately related kobuviruses among Belgian diarrheic piglets. MinION enables rapid detection of enteric viruses. Such new methodologies will change diagnostics, but more extensive validations should be conducted. The true enteric pathogenicity of porcine kobuvirus should be questioned, while its subclinical importance cannot be excluded.
Text: metagenomics is a valuable asset for diagnostics in pigs, leading to discovery of novel viruses and identification of porcine viral enteric disease complexes. Although standardized procedures have been developed to study viral metagenomes in fecal samples, they still require an extensive sample preparation, including random or targeted pre-amplification of viral genomes present in the sample 13 . Most sequencing platforms still require capital investments and high sample turnover rates to be cost-effective. Performing the necessary analyses often results in long time periods between sample arrival and diagnostic reporting, since results can only be processed after finishing the sequencing run. Third-generation sequencing using MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ONT) might be a useful and affordable diagnostic tool for swine veterinary medicine as it allows rapid sample preparation and real-time sequence analysis. The flowcells used for sequencing consist of a membrane containing multiple CsgG nanopore proteins from Escherichia coli 14 . An ion current is established through this pore resulting in typical current changes upon passage of specific nucleotides. This signal is converted into a nucleotide sequence by computational algorithms (basecalling). Since the release of MinION technology, major advances have been made in terms of the number and the quality of reads generated 15 . In the field of virology, the technology has mainly been applied in human medicine. Using nanopore sequencing, it was possible to distinguish three poxviruses with 98% nucleotide similarity at strain level 16 . MinION has also been used as a diagnostic tool during recent Ebolavirus outbreaks in West Africa, allowing fast on-site characterization of circulating strains 17, 18 . Coupled to a laptop-based bioinformatics workflow, MinION was able to detect Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus and hepatitis C virus in less than 6 hours using earlier versions of the technology 19 . A multiplex PCR method for complete on-site Zikavirus genome sequencing in samples with low viral loads has recently been developed by Quick and coworkers 20 . Partial dengue virus genomes were isothermally amplified followed by sequencing, allowing classification of strains in serotypes 21 . In veterinary virology, the use of nanopore sequencing is growing. A novel species of papillomavirus was identified in warts from giraffes, using rolling-circle amplification and nanopore sequencing 22 . The entire genome of a parapoxvirus isolated from a seal was obtained by combining data from Illumina next-generation sequencing with nanopore sequencing data 23 . One study has reported the detection of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from unamplified cDNA created from poly-A tailed RNA using cell culture grown viruses 24 . To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first using MinION as an aid in porcine health management. This study was aimed to explore the possibilities of MinION as a rapid and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in pig health management for diagnosis of viral enteric disease complexes. The ability to detect high loads of cell culture-grown rotavirus and coronavirus, mimicking shedding quantities observed in diarrheic piglets, was evaluated. In a second case, the ability to detect (novel) viruses in diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet with diarrhea was investigated. No gene-specific or random pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids was conducted to challenge the MinION's sensitivity. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the latter case and a longitudinal field study was conducted hereafter to elucidate the shedding patterns of this virus. Moreover, archival (2014) fecal samples from diarrheic suckling piglets less than two weeks old were investigated for the presence of kobuviruses, to study their epidemiology in Belgium.
be performed for 243,313 reads with a mean length of 740 nucleotides. Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were filtered out, resulting in 179,015 remaining sequences (mean length 816 nt) for use in downstream analyses. Results of the sequencing run, including taxonomical classification and mapping of reads against PEDV and rotavirus A (RVA) reference genomes are shown in Fig. 1A . After 24 hours of sequencing, a total of 15,232 reads were classified as viral by sensitive tBLASTx comparison against a complete viral database. Of these, 39.3% (n = 5,985) and 10.3% (n = 1,564) were assigned to viral families comprising Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (family Coronaviridae) and Rotavirus (family Reoviridae, subfamily Sedoreovirinae), respectively. A fraction of the reads (29.3%, n = 4,468) were assigned to order Caudovirales. These reads originated from the lambda phage DNA used in a previous control run on the same flowcell. At 7.5 and 24.2 seconds after the start of sequencing, respectively, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were translocated through a nanopore. Most reads were generated in the first twelve hours of sequencing and read accumulation was most exponential in the first three hours of sequencing (Fig. 1B) . PEDV and RVA sequences were extracted from the dataset and mapped against viral reference genes to calculate sequencing depths over time (Fig. 1C) . After one hour, sequencing depths were higher for PEDV (43.0X) than for RVA (4.9 to 22.1X). High sequencing depths were acquired after three hours of sequencing for PEDV (103.5X) and for most RVA gene segments (19.2 to 48.2X).
De novo assembly was executed on the quality-filtered reads prior to identification (tBLASTx) to recover viral genomes. This resulted in the recovery of the almost complete PEDV genome and RVA gene segments with identities varying between 95 and 99% compared to the reference genes (Table 1) . Higher assembly accuracies (97 to 99%) were obtained when only the reads matching against rotavirus and PEDV were included for de novo assembly (Table 1) . However, execution of de novo assembly prior to taxonomical classification (tBLASTx) reduced the time to identify entire viral genomes in the dataset.
Virome composition of a young diarrheic piglet using nanopore sequencing. A total of 30,088 reads were generated by sequencing the diarrheic fecal sample for three hours. Of these, 25,466 reads (q-score >7, mean read length 653 nt) were used for further analyses. Different methods were used to compare the reads against a viral database using the HPC cluster of Ghent University and results are shown in Fig. 2 . Comparison against a complete viral database resulted in the detection of 6,781 to 8,677 potential viral reads, depending on the BLAST settings. BLASTn resulted in rapid taxonomical identification of reads at almost similar sensitivity compared to tBLASTx. However, there was a very high difference between wall times on the HPC cluster, with only 26 seconds of analysis time for BLASTn, versus almost 24 hours for tBLASTx. The majority of sequences were assigned to bacteriophages within the order Caudovirales and families Siphoviridae (n = 3,213 to 4,163 reads), Podoviridae (n = 2,506 to 3,002 reads) and Myoviridae (n = 912 to 1,202 reads). A de novo assembly was executed on the basecalled, quality filtered reads and the resulting contigs were used as input material for VirSorter analysis. Nineteen contigs were classified as sure (n = 4; category 1), somewhat sure (=14; category 2) and not so sure (=1; category 3) to be phage-like contigs (Fig. 2B) . Comparison of these contigs against the GenBank database using BLAST allowed classification into four different groups. Ten contigs showed moderate to high nucleotide similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, suggesting that they all belonged to one phage genome. This was also supported by the fact that all these contigs mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Bacteroides phage B124-14 (data not shown). The longest contig with a size of 39,069 nucleotides, together with four other contigs showed similarities (95% nt identity) to different Escherichia phages. As they also mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Escherichia phage vB_EcoP_PhAPEC7, it seems that they must also belong to one phage genome (data not shown). Two contigs showed poor similarity to both the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME_196, isolated from hospital sewage in China from an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and the Enterococcus hirae bacterial genome. The latter might be a prophage inserted in the bacterial genome. Interestingly, three contigs were identified for which no similarities were found with existing viruses in GenBank, but contig 0105 mapped to the reference genome of the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME196 (data not shown). These might be novel phages or divergent variants from existing phages present in GenBank.
Three eukaryotic porcine viruses, porcine kobuvirus (n = 18 to 22 reads), enterovirus G (n = 5 to 9 reads) and astrovirus (n = 4 reads) were found at much lower abundancies. The genera Kobuvirus and Enterovirus belong to the family Picornaviridae, whereas the genus Mamastrovirus belongs to the family Astroviridae. Kobuvirus reads were mapped against a European reference strain S-1/HUN/2007/Hungary, as shown in Fig. 2C . However, full-genome coverage at high sequencing depth was not obtained.
Shedding of porcine kobuvirus and rotaviruses in suckling piglets. The shedding of porcine kobuvirus, RVA and rotavirus C (RVC) was quantitatively investigated in 5 suckling pigs of the same farm from which the diarrheic feces originated. The fecal shedding patterns of the different viruses and presence of diarrheic signs are shown in Fig. 3A . All piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus at the end of the first week after parturition. In two piglets (A and D) the shedding was sustained and lasted for at least 2 weeks (above the limit of quantification). Peak shedding titers of the porcine kobuvirus varied between 6.42 and 7.01 log 10 copies/swab, which is generally lower than peak shedding observed for typical enteric viruses such as rotavirus and PEDV. Moreover, the peak of shedding was not related to diarrheic episodes, questioning the role of this virus in the pathogenesis of diarrhea on the farm. Diarrheic signs were only noticed in two piglets (A and B). In piglet B, an association between high RVC shedding and diarrheic episodes was observed. In contrast, there was no direct association between peak shedding of kobuvirus and diarrheic episodes. Interestingly, a peak in kobuvirus shedding was observed in piglet C at day 11 post-farrowing. This animal died shortly hereafter, but it was unclear if this can be attributable to the kobuvirus infection. Acute RVA shedding was observed at the end of the suckling period in three of five piglets, even though all sows were vaccinated before farrowing using a bovine inactivated rotavirus vaccine.
Retrospective analysis of porcine kobuviruses shedding in Belgian diarrheic suckling pigs and phylogenetic analysis. A total of 44 diarrheic fecal samples collected in 2014 were screened for the presence of kobuvirus using the new RT-qPCR. Of these, 25 samples (56.8%) tested positive and 18 samples showed quantifiable viral loads (4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/swab). Seven samples were positive, but viral loads were too low to allow accurate quantification. The presence of RVA and RVC had been quantitatively assessed in these samples in a previous study and the occurrence of co-infections between rotaviruses and kobuvirus is shown in Fig. 3B 25 . Kobuvirus was found in equal ratios in rotavirus-negative and -positive samples. Twelve samples contained a single rotavirus infection with a high RVA load and in four of these, a high kobuvirus load (5.16 to 5.42 log 10 copies/g) was observed. A single RVC infection was found in seven samples and in four of these tested positive for kobuvirus at high loads (4.31 to 5.59 log 10 copies/g). A dual RVA/RVC infection was seen in two samples, but neither contained quantifiable kobuvirus loads. Many (n = 10) of the rotavirus-negative samples contained high kobuvirus loads.
Strain 17V079 showed high similarity to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates from 2014 (92.1 to 94.0% nucleotide sequence identity) and the Hungarian reference strain S-1/Hun/2017 (93.4%). Furthermore, there was a high level of genetic variability between the 2014 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates, with nucleotide sequence identities ranging between 90.1 and 97.2%. A phylogenetic analysis, using the 3D gene of 17V079 and twelve Belgian isolates from 2014 ( Fig. 3C) , shows the Belgian strains clustering between strains from different geographical locations.
Prevention and treatment of enteric disease problems in young piglets is frequently hampered by a lack of diagnostic tools. Veterinarians are restricted to a short list of known viruses, bacteria, parasites and management factors to define a differential diagnosis. Only the most likely cause(s) of the disease will be diagnostically investigated, often leading to negative, inconclusive or incomplete results. However, metagenomics studies have indicated the existence of viral enteric disease complexes, potentially involving multiple known and novel viruses 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 . Detection of nucleic acids from pathogens using NGS-based metagenomics approaches is a partial solution to diagnostic testing problems and can provide a complete readout of viruses and other pathogens present in a sample. However, most NGS platforms require large investments and processing of the reads can only start at the end of the sequencing run. Viral metagenomics also requires extensive laboratory preparations, including centrifugation, filtration and nuclease treatment to discard bacterial and host nucleic acids that make up to the bulk of all nucleic acids present 13 . Furthermore, the amount of viral nucleic acids in a sample is very low, requiring targeted or random amplification of these genomes before NGS analysis. Amplification may induce bias and hampers the development of a fast diagnostic pipelines due to considerable time loss. All these factors lead to a long turnover time between sample collection and diagnostic reporting. The third-generation sequencing device MinION (ONT), holds promise as a diagnostic platform, as it allows real-time sequencing and analyses of all DNA/RNA in a sample, theoretically without needing pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate this technology for use as a rapid tool for porcine viral enteric disease complex identification, without the conduction of viral nucleic acid amplification. In a first experiment, cell culture-grown PEDV and RVA, known to induce diarrhea in young pigs, were pooled at high loads mimicking shedding quantities in diarrheic piglets. Sequencing of this pooled sample with the MinION resulted in rapid identification of both viruses. Real-time analysis of the sequencing reads was not conducted, but is achievable as previously demonstrated by Greninger and colleagues using the SURPI analysis pipeline for rapid identification of human viruses from different clinical matrices 19 . Interestingly, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were generated respectively after 7 and 24 seconds of sequencing. High sequencing depths (43.0X) were acquired within one hour of sequencing for PEDV and within three hours for most of the eleven RVA gene segments (19.2-48.2X). Overall, higher sequencing depths were generated for PEDV that could indicate that sequencing of longer viral genomes is favored over smaller gene segments, as PEDV has a genome size of approximately 28 kb, and RVA gene segments are shorter (0.6 to 3.3 kb). This bias might have been introduced during the ligation of the sequencing adapters to the viral nucleic acids. It can be hypothesized that adapters are more easily attached to longer DNA fragments, and bias should be avoided by standardization of viral nucleic acid input length. Rapid read generation allows flexible use of the sequencing platform and sequences can be read until enough genome information of the viruses of interest is available. While the technology can be useful for giving fast readouts of viruses (<3 hours) present in a sample, thorough validation, using well-defined virus stocks, spiking experiments in matrices (e.g. feces) and real clinical samples is necessary to make sure that all members of the porcine viral enteric disease complex are accurately being diagnosed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the technology needs further improvement, as error rates of contigs from de novo assemblies still ranged between 1 and 5%, hindering the precise analysis of subtle but important mutations in the viral genome.
After the successful identification of the cell culture-grown viruses, the performance of the MinION was further explored by analyzing a diarrheic fecal sample of a one-week-old suckling piglet. Real-time PCR analyses were conducted for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV. Enterococcus hirae was isolated at a private diagnostic laboratory, but this bacterial species is not considered a typical cause of diarrheic disease in pigs 26 . Viral metagenomics was conducted on this sample using the MinION and two different BLAST search algorithms were used to taxonomically identify the reads by comparing them against a complete viral database. Overall, tBLASTx with an e-value of 10 −3 was able to identify the most viral reads compared to other search options conducted. However, BLASTn search options also reached high sensitivity, but at much lower time cost: 26 seconds instead of almost 24 hours. For rapid read analysis and searching for closely related non-divergent viral sequences, BLASTn or another fast methodology should thus be preferentially used. However, tBLASTx might pick up more divergent or novel viruses, improving overall sensitivity.
Three porcine viruses, including porcine kobuvirus, porcine mamastrovirus and enterovirus G, were identified in sample 17V079. Astro-and enteroviruses have been detected earlier in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic feces of Belgian pigs and in feces from pigs around the globe 9,10,27 . In a recent study from Thailand, the difference in prevalence of astrovirus in diarrheic (8.4%) versus non-diarrheic (4.6%) piglets less than 4-weeks-old was not statistically significant. Also other studies have shown that the role of porcine astrovirus in the pathogenesis of pig diarrhea is not completely clear 28 . In contrast, associations between diarrhea and human astrovirus infections have been made 29 . A recent study in 5 European countries (Hungary, Spain, Germany, Austria and Sweden) have indicated the widespread of porcine astroviruses in the swine population. A one hundred procent prevalence of astrovirus was found in diarrheic and non-diarrheic pigs from Austria and Spain. Porcine astroviruses have recently also been linked to outbreaks of neurological disorders in weaned piglets from Hungary, and in 5-week-old pigs and sows in the United States 30, 31 . The gut might be a hypothetical entry port for such neurological astrovirus infections.
Enteroviruses have been more generally linked to neurological disorders in pigs, although they are commonly found in feces as well 11, 12, [32] [33] [34] . In a study from Vietnam, no significant correlation was found between diarrhea status and presence of enterovirus G in feces 35 . The involvement of both astro-and enteroviruses in the pathogenesis of enteric disorders might be questioned here, but cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, while sensitive tBLASTx searches were used here, there is still a possibility that a completely novel virus might be present in the dark matter of the sequencing reads. However, reporting of a porcine kobuvirus in Belgian piglets with MinION is unique. In Belgium, kobuviruses had previously only been found in diarrheic samples of calves and young cattle in Belgium 36 . In the present study, a novel RT-qPCR assay, targeting the conserved 3D gene encoding the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, was developed and used to assess, for the first time, longitudinal quantitative shedding kinetics of porcine kobuvirus in pigs under field conditions. Similar kinetics were also analyzed for porcine rotavirus A and C. While suckling piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus from one week of age, an association between peak viral shedding (6.42 to 7.01 log 10 copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed. In one pig, an association was made between diarrheic episodes and the peak of rotavirus C shedding, a well-known enteric pathogen 37, 38 . Very interestingly, kobuvirus fecal loads were typically lower than those reported of well-described enteric viruses of which the pathogenicity has been proven using piglet infection models, such as PEDV and rotavirus [39] [40] [41] . Similar viral loads for porcine kobuvirus were also found in case (4.60 ± 1.76 copies/qPCR reaction) and control pigs (4.79 ± 1.72 copies/qPCR reaction) during a recent Danish study to evaluate the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of the new neonatal porcine diarrhea syndrome. The study demonstrated that kobuvirus, astrovirus, rotavirus A, porcine teschovirus, porcine norovirus and porcine coronaviruses were not involved in the pathogenesis of the syndrome 42 . The finding of low kobuvirus loads in feces casts doubt over the true enteric pathogenic tropism of the virus. Hypothetically, its replication is likely not distributed across the whole villus but limited to either enterocytes at the villus' tips or to immune cells present in the gut. The presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum has also been demonstrated in Hungarian pigs, but it was not known if the virus is also replicating in other organs 43 . Both the oro-fecal route and the feeding of milk to sucklings pigs could be involved in virus transmission. Highest rates of infection were observed in suckling piglets, compared to older pigs, in other countries [44] [45] [46] . In our study, relatively long shedding of porcine kobuvirus was observed in three out of five animals, which may indicate that this virus may induce persistent infections. A 2011 Brazilian study demonstrated the presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum from 3-day-old piglets, which had disappeared by day 21, indicating viral clearance from the blood and excluding systemic persistence 45 . A complete lack of pathogenicity cannot be excluded, as porcine kobuviruses might play a role as a subclinically important virus. Such subclinical, yet immunosuppressive, properties have been attributed to the economically important swine pathogen porcine circovirus 47 . Of interest, one of the piglets died at the peak of kobuvirus shedding, although it was not clear if there was any causality between virus replication and the piglet's death. In vivo animal experiments in a model of neonatal, conventional kobuvirus-negative piglets should be conducted to elucidate the pathogenesis of porcine kobuviruses. Attempts were made to isolate the virus in different cell lines (MA104, ST and SK), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. There was no evidence of cytopathogenic effect after several days of incubation. Antibodies to visualize antigen expression were not available and therefore the possibility of replication without SCIenTIFIC REPORTS | (2018) 8:9830 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9 evident cytopathogenic effect cannot be ruled out. Efforts will be made to isolate the virus in porcine primary enterocyte cultures, once available.
To assess more broadly the prevalence of kobuvirus in the Belgian swine industry, a retrospective analysis of diarrheic samples from suckling piglets less than two weeks old was conducted. A high proportion (40.9%) of the samples (n = 44) contained quantifiable viral loads ranging between 4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/g feces. Viral loads found were thus comparable to the loads excreted by piglets in the longitudinal analysis and the above-mentioned study from Denmark, demonstrating the endemic presence of the virus in the Belgian swine population 42 .
In the present study, non-diarrheic piglets were not included and therefore no association between kobuvirus prevalence and disease can be made. However, the prevalence of kobuvirus has been widely described in pigs from several European countries (The Netherlands (16.7%), Slovakia (63.4%), Hungary (81.0%), Czech Republic (87.3%), Austria (46.2%), Italy (52.4%), Germany (54.5%) and Sweden (45.0%)), American countries (The United States (21.9%) and Brazil (53.0%)), African countries (Kenya (14.9%) and Uganda (15.5%)) and Asian countries (Thailand (99%), South Korea (52.1%) and Vietnam (29.3%)) [44] [45] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . In a small proportion of these studies, statistically significant associations between prevalence of kobuvirus and diarrhea in pigs were demonstrated, such as in Hungary (54.5% prevalence in healthy pigs vs 92.3% prevalence in diarrheic pigs), Spain (47.5% healthy vs 74.4% diarrheic), Brazil (41% vs 78.4%), Thailand (19.3% vs 84.5%) and Vietnam (27.6% to 40.9%) 35, 45, 46, 52 . Indeed, it is difficult to make correlations between prevalence of the virus and diarrhea, as the pathogenicity of the virus could be largely influenced by other factors such as co-infections with other enteric viruses, microbiota and management factors.
Belgian isolates showed genetic moderate to high genetic variability, with nucleotide identities between 90.1 and 97.2%. Furthermore, they clustered diffusely between strains from different countries around the world, indicating that strains are not distinguishable based on their geographical origin.
Because most (99%) of the reads generated during sequencing of the fecal sample 17V079 matched bacteriophages upon analysis with BLAST, bacteriophages may have played an important role in the pathogenesis of the diarrheic disease. De novo assembled contigs were analyzed using VirSorter, a software package for mining viral signals from microbial genomic data. Such tools allow maximizing the possibility of detecting dsDNA phages 54 . Several contigs showed high similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, found in municipal wastewater and human fecal samples. It was shown to be absent in 30 samples collected from different animal species, including pigs, and is therefore considered a human-specific phage 55, 56 . The finding of several contigs, genetically similar to phage B124 and likely belonging to one phage genome, indicates that this phage found in the pig fecal sample may also replicate in the microbiome of the young pig gut and not solely in humans. However, it is possible that the phage's replication ability in the pig's gut is age-dependent and that very young age groups were not sampled in previous studies. Interestingly, several of the contigs found also showed similarities to Escherichia phages. Two of the contigs were similar to Escherichia phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7, isolated from Belgian rivers in the neighborhood of poultry houses and known to cause lytic infections in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Electron microscopic images of the phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7 indicated that they belonged to the family Podoviridae 57 . Two other contigs were similar to two closely related Escherichia phages, St11Ph5 and G7C, found in sewage and horse feces, respectively 58 . Finally, one contig showed limited similarity to an Enterococcus phage, isolated from hospital sewage in China, while a last contig showed moderate similaraties to the bacterial Enterococcus hirae genome. This region may be a prophage, inserted in the bacterial genome.
The phages found in this piglet may have reshaped the gut microbiota, allowing opportunistic bacteria such as Enterococcus hirae to proliferate and to start secreting toxins. It is also possible that a phage infection of bacteria in the pig's gut led to a stress status for these bacteria, prompting the secretion of toxins. The new neonatal diarrhea syndrome described above shows high similarities to the disease described in the case 17V079 and it may be that bacteriophages are involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. So far, the role of phages has not been considered in the pathogenesis of several enteric disorders, but given the high abundance here, it should be in future studies.
It is clear that new technologies will change the way diagnostics are be performed in the near future. Pricing might currently be an aspect hampering high-troughput analysis of samples in swine veterinary medicine, but as the technology evolves fast, this might become very soon less relevant. Complete overviews of all viruses and other pathogens in a sample will be given in a single readout instead of requiring different diagnostic assays. However, care should be given to the interpretation of such results, as they should only be analyzed by trained veterinarians.
Viruses. Porcine rotavirus A (RVA) strain RVA/Pig-tc/BEL/12R046/2012/G9P [23] was isolated from a diarrheic piglet and grown for three successive passages in MA104 cells to an infectious virus titer of 10 7.8 CCID 50 / ml. The nucleotide sequences of the 11 gene segments of this strain were resolved earlier using Sanger sequencing (GenBank accession numbers: KM82070 (VP1), KM820707 (VP2), KM827014 (VP3), KM820720 (VP4), KM820728 (VP6), KM820735 (VP7), KM820742 (NSP1), KM820672 (NSP2), KM820679 (NSP3), KM820686 (NSP4) and KM820693 (NSP5)) 59 . A porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV, CV777) isolated in Belgium in the 1970s was adapted for growth in Vero cells in the 1980s 60 . In our Laboratory, the virus was grown to an infectious virus titer of 10 6.0 CCID 50 /ml (GenBank accession number: AF353511).
Origin of a fecal sample from diarrheic suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample was collected from a Belgian pig on a farm housing a total of 620 sows and using a 2-week batch-production system, with a weaning age of 23 days. Topigs Norsvin sows were crossed with Piétrain boars, producing 32. toxins (Suiseng, Hipra). Rotavirus A vaccination was done off-label with an inactivated bovine rotavirus A vaccine (Lactovac, Zoetis). Until recently, diarrheic problems were rarely present in suckling piglets and also very low mortality percentages (6.2-7.1%) were observed. Since the spring of 2017, enteric disease started causing more severe problems accompanied with mortality on this farm, mainly in 7-days-old suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample of such a piglet was investigated at a private diagnostic laboratory (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) and labeled 17V079. No virological cause was found to explain the diarrheic problems on the farm. The only isolated bacterium was Enterococcus hirae. This bacterium was thereon added to the sow vaccination schedule (inactivated autovaccine). No other pathogens were found in this sample. As the clinical picture hinted at a viral cause for the disease, the sample was sent to the Laboratory of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Ghent University) for further analysis. The sample tested negative for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV using in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61, 62 . Therefore, it was decided to perform a metagenomics analysis with MinION described in this study.
Purification of viral nucleic acids. First, viral enrichment was done based on the NetoVIR protocol to obtain pure viral nucleic acids for sequencing library preparation 13 . MinION analyses of cell culture grown viruses RVA and PEDV were conducted at the Laboratory of Clinical Virology (Rega Institute, KU Leuven), whereas the diarrheic fecal sample was analyzed at the Laboratory of Virology (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University). RVA and PEDV stocks were centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 3 min. The supernatant of both suspensions was diluted to 6 log 10 CCID 50 /ml and 500 µl of each suspension was mixed to reach an equal concentration of both viruses. This mixture was filtered using a 0.8 µm polyethersulphone filter for 1 min at 17,000 × g, followed by a nuclease treatment for 2 hours at 37 °C to digest free nucleic acids in the suspension: 250 µl of the sample was added to 14 µl of home-made buffer (1 M Tris, 100 mM CaCl 2 and 30 mM MgCl 2 , pH 8), 4 µl of Benzonase Nuclease (Millipore) and 2 µl Micrococcal Nuclease (NEB) as described earlier 13 . Fourteen microliters of EDTA were added to stop the reaction, followed by extraction of nucleic acids from the viral particles using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). The manufacturer's instructions were followed but no carrier RNA was added and elution was done in 30 µl of AVE to concentrate the viral nucleic acid extract.
The diarrheic fecal sample 17V079 was processed similarly as the cell culture grown viruses, with some minor modifications. A 10% w/v suspension of the diarrhea was made in Minimum Essential Medium and centrifuged. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter (Sarstedt) and treated with Benzonase Nuclease for 1 hour to speed up the diagnostic pipeline. Viral nucleic acids were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions without addition of carrier RNA. Elution was done in a volume of 50 µl. cDNA and second strand synthesis for nanopore sequencing. Nucleic acids were heated at 95 °C for 2 min and chilled on ice to resolve secondary RNA structures and to denature double-stranded RNA. Superscript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) was used to generate cDNA. Ten microliters of template nucleic acids were mixed with 0.5 µl random hexamer primers (Random Primer 6, New England Biolabs), 1 µl dNTP mix (NEB) and 2.5 µl nuclease-free water. Primer annealing was conducted at 65 °C for 5 min, after which 4 µl Superscript IV Reaction Buffer (ThermoScientific), 1 µl dithiothreitol (ThermoScientific) and 1 µl SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) were added in a total reaction volume of 20 µl. The reaction conditions were as follows: 23 °C for 10 min, 50 °C for 10 min, 80 °C for 10 min and an infinite hold step at 10 °C.
A second strand of DNA was generated from single stranded (c)DNA molecules using the NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Kit (NEB). Twenty microliters cDNA reaction mixture were added to 10 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Reaction Buffer, 5 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Enzyme Mix and 45 µl nuclease-free water (80 µl total reaction volume). Isothermal amplification was done at 16 °C for 1 h and double-stranded nucleic acids were purified using 144 µl of magnetic AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter). Two washing steps with freshly prepared 70% ethanol were conducted before eluting in 52 µl nuclease-free water.
Nanopore sequencing library preparation. A deoxyadenosine was ligated to the 3′-end of double-stranded nucleic acids to allow binding of complimentary sequencing adapters. Fifty microliters of (un) amplified DNA were mixed with 7 µl Ultra II End-Prep Reaction Buffer (New England Biolabs) and 3 µl Ultra II End-prep enzyme mix (New England Biolabs), and incubated at 20 °C for 5 min and 65 °C for 5 min. Next, nucleic acids were purified using 60 µl AMPure XP Beads and eluted in 31 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing adapters, provided with the Ligation Sequencing Kit 1D (R9.4) (SQK-LSK108, ONT), were ligated to the dA-tailed nucleic acids. End-prepped DNA (30 µl) was mixed with 20 µl adapter mix (AMX, ONT) and 50 µl Blunt/TA Ligation Master Mix (New England Biolabs) in a total reaction volume of 100 µl and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The sequencing library, containing double-stranded DNA with adapters ligated to the 3′ ends, was then purified using 40 µl AMPure XP beads. Two washing steps were conducted using 140 µl Adapter Bead Binding Buffer (ABB, ONT) before eluting in 15 µl of Elution Buffer (ELB, ONT). (EXP-LLB001, ONT), 12 µl adapted and tethered library and 12.5 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing was done using the software programme MinKNOW software (ONT).
Bio-informatics analyses. Raw reads were produced by MinKNOW. Live basecalling was enabled for the first experiment using MinKNOW version 1.5.5. In the second experiment, basecalling was done after the sequencing run using Albacore (version 1.2.5., ONT). Quality scores and read lengths were visualized using NanoPlot, followed by quality filtering with NanoFilt 63 . Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were omitted. Sequences were then analyzed using different BLAST methods including BLASTn and tBLASTx (BLAST version 2.6.0; e-value cut-off 1e −3 -1e −10 ) to compare sensitivity and run-times to detect viral sequences among the reads. A complete viral database was composed of all virus sequences in GenBank (taxonomy ID 10239, containing sequences up to 17th of September 2017). The best hit (lowest e-value) was visualized using KronaTools 64 . Reads matching viruses were extracted using Seqtk (https://github.com/lh3/seqtk) and used in downstream analyses. GraphMap (version 0.5.2) and Samtools (version 1.6) were used for mapping of reads against reference sequences, while Canu 1.6 was used for de novo assembly of viral genomes [65] [66] [67] [68] . VirSorter was run using the 'Viromes' database to look for phages, with the Virome Decontamination Mode on to identify phage contigs 54 . Bio-informatics analyses were executed on a local computer cluster and the high-performance computing facilities of Ghent University. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Sanger sequencing of porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the sample 17V079 using the MinION. The sequence of the 3D gene of porcine kobuvirus encodes the polymerase and is considered to be most conserved among different strains. The exact nucleotide sequence of this virus was verified using reverse transcripion polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing, as low coverage was obtained with MinION. RT-PCR was executed using the OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen) with the newly designed primers Kobu_6049Fw and Kobu_7524Rv (IDT DNA Technologies) ( Table 2 ). The RT-PCR reaction contained 5 µl 5 × Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Buffer, 1 µl dNTPs, 3 µl of each primer (10 µm), 7 µl nuclease-free water, 1 µl OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix and 5 µl template RNA or water (total reaction volume of 25 µl). RT-PCR conditions were as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 15 min, followed by 30 cycles of amplification (94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72° for 90 s) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Reactions were held at 10 °C prior to loading 5 µl PCR product with 1 µl of loading dye in a 1.5% agarose gel. Electrophoresis was conducted for 30 min at 100 V and PCR product was visualized by ethidium bromide staining and UV light. The amplicon was sent to GATC (Constance, Germany) for Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer system. Quality control of the raw chromatograms was done using 4Peaks (Nucleobytes BV, The Netherlands) and BLASTn (NCBI, United States).
Specific RT-qPCR primers (Table 2) for the porcine kobuvirus polymerase-encoding gene were designed using Primerquest and Oligoanalyzer (IDT DNA Technologies) to allow exact quantification in feces of piglets. Each RT-qPCR reaction consisted of 10 µl PrecisionPlus OneStep qRT-PCR Mastermix containing SYBR Green, ROX and an inert blue pipetting dye (Primerdesign, Southampton, United Kingdom), 0.4 µl of each primer (200 nM) and 6.2 µl nuclease-free water. Three microliters of template RNA or water were added to each tube containing 17 µl mastermix. A synthetic RNA positive control (175nt) was generated by RT-PCR using the primers Kobu3D_qPCR +T7_Fw and Kobu3D_qPCR_Rv, followed by in vitro transcription of this PCR product using a T7 RNA polymerase. The positive control was measured using Nanodrop and used to setup a standard curve over a linear dynamic range (LDR) from six to one log 10 copies/reaction. Reaction conditions were as follows: 55 °C for 10 min and 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95 °C for 10 s) and annealing (58 °C for 60 s). Detection of SYBR Green fluorescence was done at the end of each annealing phase. A melt curve analysis was executed to assess specificity of the amplicons generated. Each dilution point in the standard curve and each sample was tested in duplicates. Amplicons were analyzed once on an agarose gel to assess the correct length of the amplicon and Sanger sequencing was conducted to confirm the amplification of the partial porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. Assays were valid if the efficiency over the LDR was between 90 and 110%, and R 2 of the standard curve replicates was >0.99. Quantification of the viral loads was possible if the Cq-values of two qPCR replicates fell within the LDR of the assay. Both replicates had to be positive for a sample to be considered as positive. If the Cq-values of specific amplicons have fallen behind the lowest point of the standard curve, the sample was considered positive but not quantifiable. Longitudinal investigation of kobuvirus and rotavirus shedding in suckling piglets. Upon characterization of the virome with the MinION, a longitudinal follow-up study was setup between August and September 2017. To warrant the health status of the pig stock, entrance to the farm was strictly regulated. Sampling was performed by the farmer. Detailed instructions and sampling materials were provided to the farmer. Sample collection in the longitudinal field study was done in agreement with the European legislation on animal experiments. Sample collection was approved by and done in accordance to the requirements of the Local Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University. One day after parturition of the sows, five litters were selected at random. Within each litter, one piglet was identified for longitudinal follow-up during the entire suckling period. A dry cotton rectal swab (Copan) was collected from each individual piglet at days 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 after birth. The swab was placed immediately in 2 ml of viral transport medium (phosphate buffered saline containing 1000 U/ml penicillin (Continental Pharma, Puurs, Belgium), 1 mg/ml streptomycin (Certa, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium), 1 mg/ml gentamicin (Life Technologies) and 0.01% v/v Fungizone (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium)) in a sterile 15 ml falcon tube (Sarstedt) and stored at −20 °C. Every week, samples were collected from the farm and transported to the Laboratory of Virology. The farmer was asked to mark the tube of each sample for presence or absence of diarrheic signs. Upon arrival in the Laboratory of Virology, the samples were thawed and placed on a shaker for 30 min at 4 °C to release viral particles in the transport medium. Samples were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified nucleic acids were eluted in 100 µl of AVE and stored at −70 °C until RT-qPCR analysis. RT-qPCR analysis was conducted, as described above, to quantify porcine kobuvirus genome copies per swab. Furthermore, RVA and RVC shedding was assessed using previously described in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61 .
Belgian suckling pigs. Fecal samples (n = 44) of diarrheic suckling piglets less than 2 weeks old were sent to a private laboratory by veterinarians (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) for etiological diagnosis, as described earlier.
These samples were collected in 2014 and stored at −70 °C in the laboratory. They had previously been evaluated for the presence of rotaviruses using RT-qPCR 25 . RNA extraction was conducted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit (Qiagen) as described above and RT-qPCR was done to quantify the load of kobuvirus RNA copies. Samples with a quantifiable viral load were subjected to RT-PCR to amplify the 3D polymerase gene, after which Sanger sequencing was performed. The sequences encoding the polymerase of 11 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates were deposited into GenBank with accession numbers MH184664-MH184674. The sequences were used to conduct a multiple sequence alignment together with other porcine kobuvirus strains in MEGA 7 using the ClustalW plug-in 69 . A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with RAxML using a general time reversible model with gamma distribution (20 cats, alpha: 0.121, LogLK = 14938.461) and heuristic branch swapping 70 . Tree editing was done using Affinity Designer (Serif). Pairwise distances were calculated using the p-distance model in Mega with bootstrap values set at 500 replicates. | What was the mean length of the sequenced read? | 5,290 | 816 nt | 5,943 |
1,666 | Nanopore sequencing as a revolutionary diagnostic tool for porcine viral enteric disease complexes identifies porcine kobuvirus as an important enteric virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026206/
SHA: eff8bed68ef6109e8f0c51a8b1ec4b6ca5b6329e
Authors: Theuns, Sebastiaan; Vanmechelen, Bert; Bernaert, Quinten; Deboutte, Ward; Vandenhole, Marilou; Beller, Leen; Matthijnssens, Jelle; Maes, Piet; Nauwynck, Hans J.
Date: 2018-06-29
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9
License: cc-by
Abstract: Enteric diseases in swine are often caused by different pathogens and thus metagenomics are a useful tool for diagnostics. The capacities of nanopore sequencing for viral diagnostics were investigated here. First, cell culture-grown porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and rotavirus A were pooled and sequenced on a MinION. Reads were already detected at 7 seconds after start of sequencing, resulting in high sequencing depths (19.2 to 103.5X) after 3 h. Next, diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet was analyzed. Almost all reads (99%) belonged to bacteriophages, which may have reshaped the piglet’s microbiome. Contigs matched Bacteroides, Escherichia and Enterococcus phages. Moreover, porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the feces for the first time in Belgium. Suckling piglets shed kobuvirus from one week of age, but an association between peak of viral shedding (10(6.42)–10(7.01) copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed during a follow-up study. Retrospective analysis showed the widespread (n = 25, 56.8% positive) of genetically moderately related kobuviruses among Belgian diarrheic piglets. MinION enables rapid detection of enteric viruses. Such new methodologies will change diagnostics, but more extensive validations should be conducted. The true enteric pathogenicity of porcine kobuvirus should be questioned, while its subclinical importance cannot be excluded.
Text: metagenomics is a valuable asset for diagnostics in pigs, leading to discovery of novel viruses and identification of porcine viral enteric disease complexes. Although standardized procedures have been developed to study viral metagenomes in fecal samples, they still require an extensive sample preparation, including random or targeted pre-amplification of viral genomes present in the sample 13 . Most sequencing platforms still require capital investments and high sample turnover rates to be cost-effective. Performing the necessary analyses often results in long time periods between sample arrival and diagnostic reporting, since results can only be processed after finishing the sequencing run. Third-generation sequencing using MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ONT) might be a useful and affordable diagnostic tool for swine veterinary medicine as it allows rapid sample preparation and real-time sequence analysis. The flowcells used for sequencing consist of a membrane containing multiple CsgG nanopore proteins from Escherichia coli 14 . An ion current is established through this pore resulting in typical current changes upon passage of specific nucleotides. This signal is converted into a nucleotide sequence by computational algorithms (basecalling). Since the release of MinION technology, major advances have been made in terms of the number and the quality of reads generated 15 . In the field of virology, the technology has mainly been applied in human medicine. Using nanopore sequencing, it was possible to distinguish three poxviruses with 98% nucleotide similarity at strain level 16 . MinION has also been used as a diagnostic tool during recent Ebolavirus outbreaks in West Africa, allowing fast on-site characterization of circulating strains 17, 18 . Coupled to a laptop-based bioinformatics workflow, MinION was able to detect Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus and hepatitis C virus in less than 6 hours using earlier versions of the technology 19 . A multiplex PCR method for complete on-site Zikavirus genome sequencing in samples with low viral loads has recently been developed by Quick and coworkers 20 . Partial dengue virus genomes were isothermally amplified followed by sequencing, allowing classification of strains in serotypes 21 . In veterinary virology, the use of nanopore sequencing is growing. A novel species of papillomavirus was identified in warts from giraffes, using rolling-circle amplification and nanopore sequencing 22 . The entire genome of a parapoxvirus isolated from a seal was obtained by combining data from Illumina next-generation sequencing with nanopore sequencing data 23 . One study has reported the detection of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus from unamplified cDNA created from poly-A tailed RNA using cell culture grown viruses 24 . To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first using MinION as an aid in porcine health management. This study was aimed to explore the possibilities of MinION as a rapid and easy-to-use diagnostic tool in pig health management for diagnosis of viral enteric disease complexes. The ability to detect high loads of cell culture-grown rotavirus and coronavirus, mimicking shedding quantities observed in diarrheic piglets, was evaluated. In a second case, the ability to detect (novel) viruses in diarrheic feces of a one-week-old piglet with diarrhea was investigated. No gene-specific or random pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids was conducted to challenge the MinION's sensitivity. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the latter case and a longitudinal field study was conducted hereafter to elucidate the shedding patterns of this virus. Moreover, archival (2014) fecal samples from diarrheic suckling piglets less than two weeks old were investigated for the presence of kobuviruses, to study their epidemiology in Belgium.
be performed for 243,313 reads with a mean length of 740 nucleotides. Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were filtered out, resulting in 179,015 remaining sequences (mean length 816 nt) for use in downstream analyses. Results of the sequencing run, including taxonomical classification and mapping of reads against PEDV and rotavirus A (RVA) reference genomes are shown in Fig. 1A . After 24 hours of sequencing, a total of 15,232 reads were classified as viral by sensitive tBLASTx comparison against a complete viral database. Of these, 39.3% (n = 5,985) and 10.3% (n = 1,564) were assigned to viral families comprising Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (family Coronaviridae) and Rotavirus (family Reoviridae, subfamily Sedoreovirinae), respectively. A fraction of the reads (29.3%, n = 4,468) were assigned to order Caudovirales. These reads originated from the lambda phage DNA used in a previous control run on the same flowcell. At 7.5 and 24.2 seconds after the start of sequencing, respectively, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were translocated through a nanopore. Most reads were generated in the first twelve hours of sequencing and read accumulation was most exponential in the first three hours of sequencing (Fig. 1B) . PEDV and RVA sequences were extracted from the dataset and mapped against viral reference genes to calculate sequencing depths over time (Fig. 1C) . After one hour, sequencing depths were higher for PEDV (43.0X) than for RVA (4.9 to 22.1X). High sequencing depths were acquired after three hours of sequencing for PEDV (103.5X) and for most RVA gene segments (19.2 to 48.2X).
De novo assembly was executed on the quality-filtered reads prior to identification (tBLASTx) to recover viral genomes. This resulted in the recovery of the almost complete PEDV genome and RVA gene segments with identities varying between 95 and 99% compared to the reference genes (Table 1) . Higher assembly accuracies (97 to 99%) were obtained when only the reads matching against rotavirus and PEDV were included for de novo assembly (Table 1) . However, execution of de novo assembly prior to taxonomical classification (tBLASTx) reduced the time to identify entire viral genomes in the dataset.
Virome composition of a young diarrheic piglet using nanopore sequencing. A total of 30,088 reads were generated by sequencing the diarrheic fecal sample for three hours. Of these, 25,466 reads (q-score >7, mean read length 653 nt) were used for further analyses. Different methods were used to compare the reads against a viral database using the HPC cluster of Ghent University and results are shown in Fig. 2 . Comparison against a complete viral database resulted in the detection of 6,781 to 8,677 potential viral reads, depending on the BLAST settings. BLASTn resulted in rapid taxonomical identification of reads at almost similar sensitivity compared to tBLASTx. However, there was a very high difference between wall times on the HPC cluster, with only 26 seconds of analysis time for BLASTn, versus almost 24 hours for tBLASTx. The majority of sequences were assigned to bacteriophages within the order Caudovirales and families Siphoviridae (n = 3,213 to 4,163 reads), Podoviridae (n = 2,506 to 3,002 reads) and Myoviridae (n = 912 to 1,202 reads). A de novo assembly was executed on the basecalled, quality filtered reads and the resulting contigs were used as input material for VirSorter analysis. Nineteen contigs were classified as sure (n = 4; category 1), somewhat sure (=14; category 2) and not so sure (=1; category 3) to be phage-like contigs (Fig. 2B) . Comparison of these contigs against the GenBank database using BLAST allowed classification into four different groups. Ten contigs showed moderate to high nucleotide similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, suggesting that they all belonged to one phage genome. This was also supported by the fact that all these contigs mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Bacteroides phage B124-14 (data not shown). The longest contig with a size of 39,069 nucleotides, together with four other contigs showed similarities (95% nt identity) to different Escherichia phages. As they also mapped nicely distributed across the reference genome of Escherichia phage vB_EcoP_PhAPEC7, it seems that they must also belong to one phage genome (data not shown). Two contigs showed poor similarity to both the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME_196, isolated from hospital sewage in China from an Enterococcus faecalis strain, and the Enterococcus hirae bacterial genome. The latter might be a prophage inserted in the bacterial genome. Interestingly, three contigs were identified for which no similarities were found with existing viruses in GenBank, but contig 0105 mapped to the reference genome of the Enterococcus phage vB_EfaS_IME196 (data not shown). These might be novel phages or divergent variants from existing phages present in GenBank.
Three eukaryotic porcine viruses, porcine kobuvirus (n = 18 to 22 reads), enterovirus G (n = 5 to 9 reads) and astrovirus (n = 4 reads) were found at much lower abundancies. The genera Kobuvirus and Enterovirus belong to the family Picornaviridae, whereas the genus Mamastrovirus belongs to the family Astroviridae. Kobuvirus reads were mapped against a European reference strain S-1/HUN/2007/Hungary, as shown in Fig. 2C . However, full-genome coverage at high sequencing depth was not obtained.
Shedding of porcine kobuvirus and rotaviruses in suckling piglets. The shedding of porcine kobuvirus, RVA and rotavirus C (RVC) was quantitatively investigated in 5 suckling pigs of the same farm from which the diarrheic feces originated. The fecal shedding patterns of the different viruses and presence of diarrheic signs are shown in Fig. 3A . All piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus at the end of the first week after parturition. In two piglets (A and D) the shedding was sustained and lasted for at least 2 weeks (above the limit of quantification). Peak shedding titers of the porcine kobuvirus varied between 6.42 and 7.01 log 10 copies/swab, which is generally lower than peak shedding observed for typical enteric viruses such as rotavirus and PEDV. Moreover, the peak of shedding was not related to diarrheic episodes, questioning the role of this virus in the pathogenesis of diarrhea on the farm. Diarrheic signs were only noticed in two piglets (A and B). In piglet B, an association between high RVC shedding and diarrheic episodes was observed. In contrast, there was no direct association between peak shedding of kobuvirus and diarrheic episodes. Interestingly, a peak in kobuvirus shedding was observed in piglet C at day 11 post-farrowing. This animal died shortly hereafter, but it was unclear if this can be attributable to the kobuvirus infection. Acute RVA shedding was observed at the end of the suckling period in three of five piglets, even though all sows were vaccinated before farrowing using a bovine inactivated rotavirus vaccine.
Retrospective analysis of porcine kobuviruses shedding in Belgian diarrheic suckling pigs and phylogenetic analysis. A total of 44 diarrheic fecal samples collected in 2014 were screened for the presence of kobuvirus using the new RT-qPCR. Of these, 25 samples (56.8%) tested positive and 18 samples showed quantifiable viral loads (4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/swab). Seven samples were positive, but viral loads were too low to allow accurate quantification. The presence of RVA and RVC had been quantitatively assessed in these samples in a previous study and the occurrence of co-infections between rotaviruses and kobuvirus is shown in Fig. 3B 25 . Kobuvirus was found in equal ratios in rotavirus-negative and -positive samples. Twelve samples contained a single rotavirus infection with a high RVA load and in four of these, a high kobuvirus load (5.16 to 5.42 log 10 copies/g) was observed. A single RVC infection was found in seven samples and in four of these tested positive for kobuvirus at high loads (4.31 to 5.59 log 10 copies/g). A dual RVA/RVC infection was seen in two samples, but neither contained quantifiable kobuvirus loads. Many (n = 10) of the rotavirus-negative samples contained high kobuvirus loads.
Strain 17V079 showed high similarity to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates from 2014 (92.1 to 94.0% nucleotide sequence identity) and the Hungarian reference strain S-1/Hun/2017 (93.4%). Furthermore, there was a high level of genetic variability between the 2014 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates, with nucleotide sequence identities ranging between 90.1 and 97.2%. A phylogenetic analysis, using the 3D gene of 17V079 and twelve Belgian isolates from 2014 ( Fig. 3C) , shows the Belgian strains clustering between strains from different geographical locations.
Prevention and treatment of enteric disease problems in young piglets is frequently hampered by a lack of diagnostic tools. Veterinarians are restricted to a short list of known viruses, bacteria, parasites and management factors to define a differential diagnosis. Only the most likely cause(s) of the disease will be diagnostically investigated, often leading to negative, inconclusive or incomplete results. However, metagenomics studies have indicated the existence of viral enteric disease complexes, potentially involving multiple known and novel viruses 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 . Detection of nucleic acids from pathogens using NGS-based metagenomics approaches is a partial solution to diagnostic testing problems and can provide a complete readout of viruses and other pathogens present in a sample. However, most NGS platforms require large investments and processing of the reads can only start at the end of the sequencing run. Viral metagenomics also requires extensive laboratory preparations, including centrifugation, filtration and nuclease treatment to discard bacterial and host nucleic acids that make up to the bulk of all nucleic acids present 13 . Furthermore, the amount of viral nucleic acids in a sample is very low, requiring targeted or random amplification of these genomes before NGS analysis. Amplification may induce bias and hampers the development of a fast diagnostic pipelines due to considerable time loss. All these factors lead to a long turnover time between sample collection and diagnostic reporting. The third-generation sequencing device MinION (ONT), holds promise as a diagnostic platform, as it allows real-time sequencing and analyses of all DNA/RNA in a sample, theoretically without needing pre-amplification of viral nucleic acids. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate this technology for use as a rapid tool for porcine viral enteric disease complex identification, without the conduction of viral nucleic acid amplification. In a first experiment, cell culture-grown PEDV and RVA, known to induce diarrhea in young pigs, were pooled at high loads mimicking shedding quantities in diarrheic piglets. Sequencing of this pooled sample with the MinION resulted in rapid identification of both viruses. Real-time analysis of the sequencing reads was not conducted, but is achievable as previously demonstrated by Greninger and colleagues using the SURPI analysis pipeline for rapid identification of human viruses from different clinical matrices 19 . Interestingly, the first reads matching PEDV and RVA were generated respectively after 7 and 24 seconds of sequencing. High sequencing depths (43.0X) were acquired within one hour of sequencing for PEDV and within three hours for most of the eleven RVA gene segments (19.2-48.2X). Overall, higher sequencing depths were generated for PEDV that could indicate that sequencing of longer viral genomes is favored over smaller gene segments, as PEDV has a genome size of approximately 28 kb, and RVA gene segments are shorter (0.6 to 3.3 kb). This bias might have been introduced during the ligation of the sequencing adapters to the viral nucleic acids. It can be hypothesized that adapters are more easily attached to longer DNA fragments, and bias should be avoided by standardization of viral nucleic acid input length. Rapid read generation allows flexible use of the sequencing platform and sequences can be read until enough genome information of the viruses of interest is available. While the technology can be useful for giving fast readouts of viruses (<3 hours) present in a sample, thorough validation, using well-defined virus stocks, spiking experiments in matrices (e.g. feces) and real clinical samples is necessary to make sure that all members of the porcine viral enteric disease complex are accurately being diagnosed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the technology needs further improvement, as error rates of contigs from de novo assemblies still ranged between 1 and 5%, hindering the precise analysis of subtle but important mutations in the viral genome.
After the successful identification of the cell culture-grown viruses, the performance of the MinION was further explored by analyzing a diarrheic fecal sample of a one-week-old suckling piglet. Real-time PCR analyses were conducted for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV. Enterococcus hirae was isolated at a private diagnostic laboratory, but this bacterial species is not considered a typical cause of diarrheic disease in pigs 26 . Viral metagenomics was conducted on this sample using the MinION and two different BLAST search algorithms were used to taxonomically identify the reads by comparing them against a complete viral database. Overall, tBLASTx with an e-value of 10 −3 was able to identify the most viral reads compared to other search options conducted. However, BLASTn search options also reached high sensitivity, but at much lower time cost: 26 seconds instead of almost 24 hours. For rapid read analysis and searching for closely related non-divergent viral sequences, BLASTn or another fast methodology should thus be preferentially used. However, tBLASTx might pick up more divergent or novel viruses, improving overall sensitivity.
Three porcine viruses, including porcine kobuvirus, porcine mamastrovirus and enterovirus G, were identified in sample 17V079. Astro-and enteroviruses have been detected earlier in both diarrheic and non-diarrheic feces of Belgian pigs and in feces from pigs around the globe 9,10,27 . In a recent study from Thailand, the difference in prevalence of astrovirus in diarrheic (8.4%) versus non-diarrheic (4.6%) piglets less than 4-weeks-old was not statistically significant. Also other studies have shown that the role of porcine astrovirus in the pathogenesis of pig diarrhea is not completely clear 28 . In contrast, associations between diarrhea and human astrovirus infections have been made 29 . A recent study in 5 European countries (Hungary, Spain, Germany, Austria and Sweden) have indicated the widespread of porcine astroviruses in the swine population. A one hundred procent prevalence of astrovirus was found in diarrheic and non-diarrheic pigs from Austria and Spain. Porcine astroviruses have recently also been linked to outbreaks of neurological disorders in weaned piglets from Hungary, and in 5-week-old pigs and sows in the United States 30, 31 . The gut might be a hypothetical entry port for such neurological astrovirus infections.
Enteroviruses have been more generally linked to neurological disorders in pigs, although they are commonly found in feces as well 11, 12, [32] [33] [34] . In a study from Vietnam, no significant correlation was found between diarrhea status and presence of enterovirus G in feces 35 . The involvement of both astro-and enteroviruses in the pathogenesis of enteric disorders might be questioned here, but cannot be completely ruled out. Furthermore, while sensitive tBLASTx searches were used here, there is still a possibility that a completely novel virus might be present in the dark matter of the sequencing reads. However, reporting of a porcine kobuvirus in Belgian piglets with MinION is unique. In Belgium, kobuviruses had previously only been found in diarrheic samples of calves and young cattle in Belgium 36 . In the present study, a novel RT-qPCR assay, targeting the conserved 3D gene encoding the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, was developed and used to assess, for the first time, longitudinal quantitative shedding kinetics of porcine kobuvirus in pigs under field conditions. Similar kinetics were also analyzed for porcine rotavirus A and C. While suckling piglets started shedding porcine kobuvirus from one week of age, an association between peak viral shedding (6.42 to 7.01 log 10 copies/swab) and diarrheic signs was not observed. In one pig, an association was made between diarrheic episodes and the peak of rotavirus C shedding, a well-known enteric pathogen 37, 38 . Very interestingly, kobuvirus fecal loads were typically lower than those reported of well-described enteric viruses of which the pathogenicity has been proven using piglet infection models, such as PEDV and rotavirus [39] [40] [41] . Similar viral loads for porcine kobuvirus were also found in case (4.60 ± 1.76 copies/qPCR reaction) and control pigs (4.79 ± 1.72 copies/qPCR reaction) during a recent Danish study to evaluate the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of the new neonatal porcine diarrhea syndrome. The study demonstrated that kobuvirus, astrovirus, rotavirus A, porcine teschovirus, porcine norovirus and porcine coronaviruses were not involved in the pathogenesis of the syndrome 42 . The finding of low kobuvirus loads in feces casts doubt over the true enteric pathogenic tropism of the virus. Hypothetically, its replication is likely not distributed across the whole villus but limited to either enterocytes at the villus' tips or to immune cells present in the gut. The presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum has also been demonstrated in Hungarian pigs, but it was not known if the virus is also replicating in other organs 43 . Both the oro-fecal route and the feeding of milk to sucklings pigs could be involved in virus transmission. Highest rates of infection were observed in suckling piglets, compared to older pigs, in other countries [44] [45] [46] . In our study, relatively long shedding of porcine kobuvirus was observed in three out of five animals, which may indicate that this virus may induce persistent infections. A 2011 Brazilian study demonstrated the presence of kobuvirus RNA in serum from 3-day-old piglets, which had disappeared by day 21, indicating viral clearance from the blood and excluding systemic persistence 45 . A complete lack of pathogenicity cannot be excluded, as porcine kobuviruses might play a role as a subclinically important virus. Such subclinical, yet immunosuppressive, properties have been attributed to the economically important swine pathogen porcine circovirus 47 . Of interest, one of the piglets died at the peak of kobuvirus shedding, although it was not clear if there was any causality between virus replication and the piglet's death. In vivo animal experiments in a model of neonatal, conventional kobuvirus-negative piglets should be conducted to elucidate the pathogenesis of porcine kobuviruses. Attempts were made to isolate the virus in different cell lines (MA104, ST and SK), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. There was no evidence of cytopathogenic effect after several days of incubation. Antibodies to visualize antigen expression were not available and therefore the possibility of replication without SCIenTIFIC REPORTS | (2018) 8:9830 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28180-9 evident cytopathogenic effect cannot be ruled out. Efforts will be made to isolate the virus in porcine primary enterocyte cultures, once available.
To assess more broadly the prevalence of kobuvirus in the Belgian swine industry, a retrospective analysis of diarrheic samples from suckling piglets less than two weeks old was conducted. A high proportion (40.9%) of the samples (n = 44) contained quantifiable viral loads ranging between 4.31 to 6.83 log 10 copies/g feces. Viral loads found were thus comparable to the loads excreted by piglets in the longitudinal analysis and the above-mentioned study from Denmark, demonstrating the endemic presence of the virus in the Belgian swine population 42 .
In the present study, non-diarrheic piglets were not included and therefore no association between kobuvirus prevalence and disease can be made. However, the prevalence of kobuvirus has been widely described in pigs from several European countries (The Netherlands (16.7%), Slovakia (63.4%), Hungary (81.0%), Czech Republic (87.3%), Austria (46.2%), Italy (52.4%), Germany (54.5%) and Sweden (45.0%)), American countries (The United States (21.9%) and Brazil (53.0%)), African countries (Kenya (14.9%) and Uganda (15.5%)) and Asian countries (Thailand (99%), South Korea (52.1%) and Vietnam (29.3%)) [44] [45] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] . In a small proportion of these studies, statistically significant associations between prevalence of kobuvirus and diarrhea in pigs were demonstrated, such as in Hungary (54.5% prevalence in healthy pigs vs 92.3% prevalence in diarrheic pigs), Spain (47.5% healthy vs 74.4% diarrheic), Brazil (41% vs 78.4%), Thailand (19.3% vs 84.5%) and Vietnam (27.6% to 40.9%) 35, 45, 46, 52 . Indeed, it is difficult to make correlations between prevalence of the virus and diarrhea, as the pathogenicity of the virus could be largely influenced by other factors such as co-infections with other enteric viruses, microbiota and management factors.
Belgian isolates showed genetic moderate to high genetic variability, with nucleotide identities between 90.1 and 97.2%. Furthermore, they clustered diffusely between strains from different countries around the world, indicating that strains are not distinguishable based on their geographical origin.
Because most (99%) of the reads generated during sequencing of the fecal sample 17V079 matched bacteriophages upon analysis with BLAST, bacteriophages may have played an important role in the pathogenesis of the diarrheic disease. De novo assembled contigs were analyzed using VirSorter, a software package for mining viral signals from microbial genomic data. Such tools allow maximizing the possibility of detecting dsDNA phages 54 . Several contigs showed high similarities to the Bacteroides phage B124-14, found in municipal wastewater and human fecal samples. It was shown to be absent in 30 samples collected from different animal species, including pigs, and is therefore considered a human-specific phage 55, 56 . The finding of several contigs, genetically similar to phage B124 and likely belonging to one phage genome, indicates that this phage found in the pig fecal sample may also replicate in the microbiome of the young pig gut and not solely in humans. However, it is possible that the phage's replication ability in the pig's gut is age-dependent and that very young age groups were not sampled in previous studies. Interestingly, several of the contigs found also showed similarities to Escherichia phages. Two of the contigs were similar to Escherichia phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7, isolated from Belgian rivers in the neighborhood of poultry houses and known to cause lytic infections in avian pathogenic Escherichia coli. Electron microscopic images of the phages PhAPEC5 and PhAPEC7 indicated that they belonged to the family Podoviridae 57 . Two other contigs were similar to two closely related Escherichia phages, St11Ph5 and G7C, found in sewage and horse feces, respectively 58 . Finally, one contig showed limited similarity to an Enterococcus phage, isolated from hospital sewage in China, while a last contig showed moderate similaraties to the bacterial Enterococcus hirae genome. This region may be a prophage, inserted in the bacterial genome.
The phages found in this piglet may have reshaped the gut microbiota, allowing opportunistic bacteria such as Enterococcus hirae to proliferate and to start secreting toxins. It is also possible that a phage infection of bacteria in the pig's gut led to a stress status for these bacteria, prompting the secretion of toxins. The new neonatal diarrhea syndrome described above shows high similarities to the disease described in the case 17V079 and it may be that bacteriophages are involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome. So far, the role of phages has not been considered in the pathogenesis of several enteric disorders, but given the high abundance here, it should be in future studies.
It is clear that new technologies will change the way diagnostics are be performed in the near future. Pricing might currently be an aspect hampering high-troughput analysis of samples in swine veterinary medicine, but as the technology evolves fast, this might become very soon less relevant. Complete overviews of all viruses and other pathogens in a sample will be given in a single readout instead of requiring different diagnostic assays. However, care should be given to the interpretation of such results, as they should only be analyzed by trained veterinarians.
Viruses. Porcine rotavirus A (RVA) strain RVA/Pig-tc/BEL/12R046/2012/G9P [23] was isolated from a diarrheic piglet and grown for three successive passages in MA104 cells to an infectious virus titer of 10 7.8 CCID 50 / ml. The nucleotide sequences of the 11 gene segments of this strain were resolved earlier using Sanger sequencing (GenBank accession numbers: KM82070 (VP1), KM820707 (VP2), KM827014 (VP3), KM820720 (VP4), KM820728 (VP6), KM820735 (VP7), KM820742 (NSP1), KM820672 (NSP2), KM820679 (NSP3), KM820686 (NSP4) and KM820693 (NSP5)) 59 . A porcine epidemic diarrhea virus strain (PEDV, CV777) isolated in Belgium in the 1970s was adapted for growth in Vero cells in the 1980s 60 . In our Laboratory, the virus was grown to an infectious virus titer of 10 6.0 CCID 50 /ml (GenBank accession number: AF353511).
Origin of a fecal sample from diarrheic suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample was collected from a Belgian pig on a farm housing a total of 620 sows and using a 2-week batch-production system, with a weaning age of 23 days. Topigs Norsvin sows were crossed with Piétrain boars, producing 32. toxins (Suiseng, Hipra). Rotavirus A vaccination was done off-label with an inactivated bovine rotavirus A vaccine (Lactovac, Zoetis). Until recently, diarrheic problems were rarely present in suckling piglets and also very low mortality percentages (6.2-7.1%) were observed. Since the spring of 2017, enteric disease started causing more severe problems accompanied with mortality on this farm, mainly in 7-days-old suckling piglets. A diarrheic fecal sample of such a piglet was investigated at a private diagnostic laboratory (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) and labeled 17V079. No virological cause was found to explain the diarrheic problems on the farm. The only isolated bacterium was Enterococcus hirae. This bacterium was thereon added to the sow vaccination schedule (inactivated autovaccine). No other pathogens were found in this sample. As the clinical picture hinted at a viral cause for the disease, the sample was sent to the Laboratory of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (Ghent University) for further analysis. The sample tested negative for RVA, RVC, PEDV and TGEV using in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61, 62 . Therefore, it was decided to perform a metagenomics analysis with MinION described in this study.
Purification of viral nucleic acids. First, viral enrichment was done based on the NetoVIR protocol to obtain pure viral nucleic acids for sequencing library preparation 13 . MinION analyses of cell culture grown viruses RVA and PEDV were conducted at the Laboratory of Clinical Virology (Rega Institute, KU Leuven), whereas the diarrheic fecal sample was analyzed at the Laboratory of Virology (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University). RVA and PEDV stocks were centrifuged at 17,000 × g for 3 min. The supernatant of both suspensions was diluted to 6 log 10 CCID 50 /ml and 500 µl of each suspension was mixed to reach an equal concentration of both viruses. This mixture was filtered using a 0.8 µm polyethersulphone filter for 1 min at 17,000 × g, followed by a nuclease treatment for 2 hours at 37 °C to digest free nucleic acids in the suspension: 250 µl of the sample was added to 14 µl of home-made buffer (1 M Tris, 100 mM CaCl 2 and 30 mM MgCl 2 , pH 8), 4 µl of Benzonase Nuclease (Millipore) and 2 µl Micrococcal Nuclease (NEB) as described earlier 13 . Fourteen microliters of EDTA were added to stop the reaction, followed by extraction of nucleic acids from the viral particles using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen). The manufacturer's instructions were followed but no carrier RNA was added and elution was done in 30 µl of AVE to concentrate the viral nucleic acid extract.
The diarrheic fecal sample 17V079 was processed similarly as the cell culture grown viruses, with some minor modifications. A 10% w/v suspension of the diarrhea was made in Minimum Essential Medium and centrifuged. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter (Sarstedt) and treated with Benzonase Nuclease for 1 hour to speed up the diagnostic pipeline. Viral nucleic acids were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions without addition of carrier RNA. Elution was done in a volume of 50 µl. cDNA and second strand synthesis for nanopore sequencing. Nucleic acids were heated at 95 °C for 2 min and chilled on ice to resolve secondary RNA structures and to denature double-stranded RNA. Superscript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) was used to generate cDNA. Ten microliters of template nucleic acids were mixed with 0.5 µl random hexamer primers (Random Primer 6, New England Biolabs), 1 µl dNTP mix (NEB) and 2.5 µl nuclease-free water. Primer annealing was conducted at 65 °C for 5 min, after which 4 µl Superscript IV Reaction Buffer (ThermoScientific), 1 µl dithiothreitol (ThermoScientific) and 1 µl SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase (ThermoScientific) were added in a total reaction volume of 20 µl. The reaction conditions were as follows: 23 °C for 10 min, 50 °C for 10 min, 80 °C for 10 min and an infinite hold step at 10 °C.
A second strand of DNA was generated from single stranded (c)DNA molecules using the NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Kit (NEB). Twenty microliters cDNA reaction mixture were added to 10 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Reaction Buffer, 5 µl NEBNext Second Strand Synthesis Enzyme Mix and 45 µl nuclease-free water (80 µl total reaction volume). Isothermal amplification was done at 16 °C for 1 h and double-stranded nucleic acids were purified using 144 µl of magnetic AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter). Two washing steps with freshly prepared 70% ethanol were conducted before eluting in 52 µl nuclease-free water.
Nanopore sequencing library preparation. A deoxyadenosine was ligated to the 3′-end of double-stranded nucleic acids to allow binding of complimentary sequencing adapters. Fifty microliters of (un) amplified DNA were mixed with 7 µl Ultra II End-Prep Reaction Buffer (New England Biolabs) and 3 µl Ultra II End-prep enzyme mix (New England Biolabs), and incubated at 20 °C for 5 min and 65 °C for 5 min. Next, nucleic acids were purified using 60 µl AMPure XP Beads and eluted in 31 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing adapters, provided with the Ligation Sequencing Kit 1D (R9.4) (SQK-LSK108, ONT), were ligated to the dA-tailed nucleic acids. End-prepped DNA (30 µl) was mixed with 20 µl adapter mix (AMX, ONT) and 50 µl Blunt/TA Ligation Master Mix (New England Biolabs) in a total reaction volume of 100 µl and incubated at room temperature for 10 min. The sequencing library, containing double-stranded DNA with adapters ligated to the 3′ ends, was then purified using 40 µl AMPure XP beads. Two washing steps were conducted using 140 µl Adapter Bead Binding Buffer (ABB, ONT) before eluting in 15 µl of Elution Buffer (ELB, ONT). (EXP-LLB001, ONT), 12 µl adapted and tethered library and 12.5 µl nuclease-free water. Sequencing was done using the software programme MinKNOW software (ONT).
Bio-informatics analyses. Raw reads were produced by MinKNOW. Live basecalling was enabled for the first experiment using MinKNOW version 1.5.5. In the second experiment, basecalling was done after the sequencing run using Albacore (version 1.2.5., ONT). Quality scores and read lengths were visualized using NanoPlot, followed by quality filtering with NanoFilt 63 . Reads with a q-score lower than 7 were omitted. Sequences were then analyzed using different BLAST methods including BLASTn and tBLASTx (BLAST version 2.6.0; e-value cut-off 1e −3 -1e −10 ) to compare sensitivity and run-times to detect viral sequences among the reads. A complete viral database was composed of all virus sequences in GenBank (taxonomy ID 10239, containing sequences up to 17th of September 2017). The best hit (lowest e-value) was visualized using KronaTools 64 . Reads matching viruses were extracted using Seqtk (https://github.com/lh3/seqtk) and used in downstream analyses. GraphMap (version 0.5.2) and Samtools (version 1.6) were used for mapping of reads against reference sequences, while Canu 1.6 was used for de novo assembly of viral genomes [65] [66] [67] [68] . VirSorter was run using the 'Viromes' database to look for phages, with the Virome Decontamination Mode on to identify phage contigs 54 . Bio-informatics analyses were executed on a local computer cluster and the high-performance computing facilities of Ghent University. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Sanger sequencing of porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. A porcine kobuvirus was discovered in the sample 17V079 using the MinION. The sequence of the 3D gene of porcine kobuvirus encodes the polymerase and is considered to be most conserved among different strains. The exact nucleotide sequence of this virus was verified using reverse transcripion polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing, as low coverage was obtained with MinION. RT-PCR was executed using the OneStep RT-PCR Kit (Qiagen) with the newly designed primers Kobu_6049Fw and Kobu_7524Rv (IDT DNA Technologies) ( Table 2 ). The RT-PCR reaction contained 5 µl 5 × Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Buffer, 1 µl dNTPs, 3 µl of each primer (10 µm), 7 µl nuclease-free water, 1 µl OneStep RT-PCR enzyme mix and 5 µl template RNA or water (total reaction volume of 25 µl). RT-PCR conditions were as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 15 min, followed by 30 cycles of amplification (94 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72° for 90 s) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Reactions were held at 10 °C prior to loading 5 µl PCR product with 1 µl of loading dye in a 1.5% agarose gel. Electrophoresis was conducted for 30 min at 100 V and PCR product was visualized by ethidium bromide staining and UV light. The amplicon was sent to GATC (Constance, Germany) for Sanger sequencing using an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer system. Quality control of the raw chromatograms was done using 4Peaks (Nucleobytes BV, The Netherlands) and BLASTn (NCBI, United States).
Specific RT-qPCR primers (Table 2) for the porcine kobuvirus polymerase-encoding gene were designed using Primerquest and Oligoanalyzer (IDT DNA Technologies) to allow exact quantification in feces of piglets. Each RT-qPCR reaction consisted of 10 µl PrecisionPlus OneStep qRT-PCR Mastermix containing SYBR Green, ROX and an inert blue pipetting dye (Primerdesign, Southampton, United Kingdom), 0.4 µl of each primer (200 nM) and 6.2 µl nuclease-free water. Three microliters of template RNA or water were added to each tube containing 17 µl mastermix. A synthetic RNA positive control (175nt) was generated by RT-PCR using the primers Kobu3D_qPCR +T7_Fw and Kobu3D_qPCR_Rv, followed by in vitro transcription of this PCR product using a T7 RNA polymerase. The positive control was measured using Nanodrop and used to setup a standard curve over a linear dynamic range (LDR) from six to one log 10 copies/reaction. Reaction conditions were as follows: 55 °C for 10 min and 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation (95 °C for 10 s) and annealing (58 °C for 60 s). Detection of SYBR Green fluorescence was done at the end of each annealing phase. A melt curve analysis was executed to assess specificity of the amplicons generated. Each dilution point in the standard curve and each sample was tested in duplicates. Amplicons were analyzed once on an agarose gel to assess the correct length of the amplicon and Sanger sequencing was conducted to confirm the amplification of the partial porcine kobuvirus polymerase gene. Assays were valid if the efficiency over the LDR was between 90 and 110%, and R 2 of the standard curve replicates was >0.99. Quantification of the viral loads was possible if the Cq-values of two qPCR replicates fell within the LDR of the assay. Both replicates had to be positive for a sample to be considered as positive. If the Cq-values of specific amplicons have fallen behind the lowest point of the standard curve, the sample was considered positive but not quantifiable. Longitudinal investigation of kobuvirus and rotavirus shedding in suckling piglets. Upon characterization of the virome with the MinION, a longitudinal follow-up study was setup between August and September 2017. To warrant the health status of the pig stock, entrance to the farm was strictly regulated. Sampling was performed by the farmer. Detailed instructions and sampling materials were provided to the farmer. Sample collection in the longitudinal field study was done in agreement with the European legislation on animal experiments. Sample collection was approved by and done in accordance to the requirements of the Local Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University. One day after parturition of the sows, five litters were selected at random. Within each litter, one piglet was identified for longitudinal follow-up during the entire suckling period. A dry cotton rectal swab (Copan) was collected from each individual piglet at days 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 after birth. The swab was placed immediately in 2 ml of viral transport medium (phosphate buffered saline containing 1000 U/ml penicillin (Continental Pharma, Puurs, Belgium), 1 mg/ml streptomycin (Certa, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium), 1 mg/ml gentamicin (Life Technologies) and 0.01% v/v Fungizone (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine l′Alleud, Belgium)) in a sterile 15 ml falcon tube (Sarstedt) and stored at −20 °C. Every week, samples were collected from the farm and transported to the Laboratory of Virology. The farmer was asked to mark the tube of each sample for presence or absence of diarrheic signs. Upon arrival in the Laboratory of Virology, the samples were thawed and placed on a shaker for 30 min at 4 °C to release viral particles in the transport medium. Samples were extracted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified nucleic acids were eluted in 100 µl of AVE and stored at −70 °C until RT-qPCR analysis. RT-qPCR analysis was conducted, as described above, to quantify porcine kobuvirus genome copies per swab. Furthermore, RVA and RVC shedding was assessed using previously described in-house RT-qPCR assays 25, 61 .
Belgian suckling pigs. Fecal samples (n = 44) of diarrheic suckling piglets less than 2 weeks old were sent to a private laboratory by veterinarians (Dialab, Belsele, Belgium) for etiological diagnosis, as described earlier.
These samples were collected in 2014 and stored at −70 °C in the laboratory. They had previously been evaluated for the presence of rotaviruses using RT-qPCR 25 . RNA extraction was conducted using the QIAamp Cador Pathogen Mini Kit (Qiagen) as described above and RT-qPCR was done to quantify the load of kobuvirus RNA copies. Samples with a quantifiable viral load were subjected to RT-PCR to amplify the 3D polymerase gene, after which Sanger sequencing was performed. The sequences encoding the polymerase of 11 Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates were deposited into GenBank with accession numbers MH184664-MH184674. The sequences were used to conduct a multiple sequence alignment together with other porcine kobuvirus strains in MEGA 7 using the ClustalW plug-in 69 . A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with RAxML using a general time reversible model with gamma distribution (20 cats, alpha: 0.121, LogLK = 14938.461) and heuristic branch swapping 70 . Tree editing was done using Affinity Designer (Serif). Pairwise distances were calculated using the p-distance model in Mega with bootstrap values set at 500 replicates. | Which strain was similar to other Belgian porcine kobuvirus isolates? | 5,291 | 17V079 | 14,012 |
1,667 | C. difficile 630Δerm Spo0A Regulates Sporulation, but Does Not Contribute to Toxin Production, by Direct High-Affinity Binding to Target DNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485338/
SHA: f0fb3bbd96dad4c907c7fd456cd5783ed8fa7bd6
Authors: Rosenbusch, Katharina E.; Bakker, Dennis; Kuijper, Ed J.; Smits, Wiep Klaas
Date: 2012-10-31
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048608
License: cc-by
Abstract: Clostridium difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that can form highly resistant endospores. The bacterium is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI), for which the symptoms can range from a mild diarrhea to potentially fatal pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon. Endospore formation in Firmicutes, including C. difficile, is governed by the key regulator for sporulation, Spo0A. In Bacillus subtilis, this transcription factor is also directly or indirectly involved in various other cellular processes. Here, we report that C. difficile Spo0A shows a high degree of similarity to the well characterized B. subtilis protein and recognizes a similar binding sequence. We find that the laboratory strain C. difficile 630Δerm contains an 18bp-duplication near the DNA-binding domain compared to its ancestral strain 630. In vitro binding assays using purified C-terminal DNA binding domain of the C. difficile Spo0A protein demonstrate direct binding to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, early sporulation genes and several other putative targets. In vitro binding assays suggest that the gene encoding the major clostridial toxin TcdB may be a direct target of Spo0A, but supernatant derived from a spo0A negative strain was no less toxic towards Vero cells than that obtained from a wild type strain, in contrast to previous reports. These results identify for the first time direct (putative) targets of the Spo0A protein in C. difficile and make a positive effect of Spo0A on production of the large clostridial toxins unlikely.
Text: Sporulation is an adaptive strategy that enables bacteria to survive harsh environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time, and is an integral part of the transmission of sporulating pathogens and their tolerance and resistance towards antimicrobial compounds.
Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation [1, 2] . Most of our knowledge about the protein is based on work in Bacilli. Spo0A is a response regulator that demonstrates phosphorylation dependent binding to DNA [3] [4] [5] . Phosphorylation occurs through the concerted action of several proteins that together form a so called phosphorelay [6] . The signaling cascade allows for the integration of environmental signals into the regulation of Spo0A dependent processes, including sporulation. The two functional domains, the N-terminal phosphorylation and dimerization domain (receiver domain), and the C-terminal DNA binding (effector) domain are separated by a hinge region that is relatively poorly conserved [7] . Phosphorylation is believed to result in a structural rearrangement that facilitates dimerization [8, 9] , resulting in the disruption of transcription-inhibitory contacts between the receiver and effector domains. The isolated DNA binding domain can bind legitimate targets of the Spo0A protein due to the absence of the transcription inhibitory contacts, thereby bypassing the need for phosphorylation [10] . Extensive characterization of Spo0A targets has revealed a motif that represents a high affinity Spo0A binding site, the 0A box [10, 11] . The crystal structure of the DNA binding domain confirms specific and non-specific contacts between the protein and the consensus sequence [12, 13] . It is noteworthy that Spo0A regulates many other processes than sporulation, such as competence for genetic transformation, DNA replication, and biofilm formation in B. subtilis [14] [15] [16] , virulence factors and stress responses in for instance B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] , and solvent production in Clostridium acetobutylicum [22, 23] .
C. difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI) (for recent reviews see [24, 25] ). Though many people are asymptomatically colonized by C. difficile, the bacterium can cause serious health problems, such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, under the influence of risk factors such as age and antibiotic use. As a result, CDI was long regarded a nosocomial infection. Recently, however, an increase in the cases of community acquired CDI can be observed [26] . Outbreaks of CDI have been linked to so called hypervirulent strains, such as PCR ribotypes 027 (BI/ NAP1) and 078 [27, 28] . Its main virulence factors are the major clostridial toxins A and B [29, 30] . In addition, certain strains of C. difficile, including ribotypes 027 and 078, additionally encode a binary toxin [31, 32] . C. difficile is transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is believed that spores are crucial to successfully infect new hosts, as they are able to withstand the harsh environment of the stomach, and survive antibiotic treatments that alter the endogenous flora, after which C. difficile can overgrow [24, 25] .
There is limited knowledge about the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile. It has been reported that spo0A, as expected, is required for the formation of spores [33] and the gene is required for persistence and transmission in mice [34] . Though the pathways downstream of Spo0A seem to a large extent conserved between B. subtilis and Clostridia, this is less so for the pathways leading to activation of Spo0A [2] . It has been suggested that the orphan histidine kinase CD2492 is involved in the activation of Spo0A [35] . Similarly, it was reported that multiple orphan histidine kinases can phosphorylate Spo0A in C. acetobutylicum [36] . Recently, it was reported that spo0A can be transcribed from a SigH-dependent promoter [37] . It is unknown which genes are regulated by direct binding of Spo0A to their upstream regions.
Here, we establish an in vitro binding assay for C. difficile Spo0A and demonstrate for the first time direct binding of this transcription factor to DNA upstream of several putative target genes.
Escherichia coli strains were routinely grown in Luria-Bertani broth or plates, supplemented with appropriate antibiotics. Chloramphenicol was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL for agar plates and 10 mg/mL for liquid cultures. Ampicillin was used at a final concentration of 100 mg/mL. Kanamycin was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL. Cloning was carried out using E. coli DH5a, overexpression was performed in E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). C. difficile strains were grown in a glucose-free trypton-yeast based medium (TTY; 3% w/v bactotrypton (BD), 2% yeast extract (Fluka), 0.1% w/v thioglycollate (Sigma) pH 7.4), supplemented with 20 mg/mL of lincomycin when appropriate, or on CLO or TSS plates (Biomerieux).
All plasmids are listed in Table 1 . Primers (obtained from Sigma Aldrich) are listed in Text S1 and specific cycling conditions are available on request. Unless noted otherwise, PCR reactions were carried out using Pfu polymerase (Fermentas) according to the instructions of the manufacturer.
Plasmid pWKS1251, for the overproduction of Spo0A-DBD carrying a C-terminal 66His-tag, was constructed as follows. A sequence corresponding to the DNA binding domain of Spo0A was amplified using primers oWKS-1123a and oWKS-1124 using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile strain 630Derm as a template. The resulting fragment was cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO (Invitrogen), yielding pWKS1247. This plasmid was digested with NdeI and XhoI, separated on a 1% agarose/0.56 TAE (20 mM Tris Acetate, 0.5 mM EDTA) gel, the fragment corresponding to the DNA binding domain was recovered by gel-isolation (using a GeneJET Gel Extraction kit, Fermentas) and cloned into similarly digested pMF14 [10] that had been gel-isolated in the same manner. The construct was verified by PCR, restriction analyses and DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-135 and oWKS-136 (see below).
Plasmid pWKS1245, for the production of full length Spo0A carrying a C-terminal 6xHis-tag, was constructed in a similar manner using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm as a template, but using the PCR product of primers oWKS-1122 and oWKS-1123a.
Plasmids used as PCR templates for generating EMSA probes were constructed by cloning the PCR products into pCR2.1-TOPO. The inserts, and in the case of the mutated PabrB promoters the presence of the desired point mutations in the consensus 0A box, were verified by DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-24 and oWKS-25 (see below).
Sequence grade plasmids were isolated using a Nucleospin Plasmid QuickPure kit (Macherey Nagel) according to the manufacturer's instructions, except that two lysis reactions were combined onto a single filter and eluted with 65uC prewarmed AE buffer. All constructs were sequenced using BigDye Terminator chemistry (Invitrogen) on an ABI3130 sequencer (Perkin Elmer), according to the instructions of the manufacturers. In short, ,200 ng of plasmid was mixed with 3.2 pmol of primer, 1 mL Terminator Ready Reaction Mix (Invitrogen) in a final volume of 20 mL. After thermocycling, DNA was precipitated and washed with 65% isopropanol, and dissolved in 12 mL HiDi formamid (Invitrogen) at 96uC for 2 mins and stored in the dark at 4uC until the sequencing run. Sequence analyses were performed in CloneManager Professional Suite 7 (SciEd) and Geneious version 5.6.2 (Biomatters Ltd).
Plasmids pWKS1245 and pWKS1251 were transformed into E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). Transformants were used to inoculate 25 mL of LB with appropriate antibiotics. After overnight incubation, the cells were 1:100 diluted in 500 mL fresh medium containing appropriate antibiotics. Protein production was induced with 1 mM IPTG at an OD600 of 0.7 and growth was continued for another three hours before harvesting. Cells were washed with ice cold PBS and stored at 280uC for later use. Purification of the proteins was essentially done as described [10] . In short, cells were disrupted in 4 mL lysis buffer (2 mM PMSF, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). Cleared cell lysates we incubated with 2 mL pre-equilibrated 50% TALON slurry (Clontech) in a final volume of 15 mL lysis buffer for 1 hr. The resin was allowed to settle on a Poly-Prep column (BioRad) and washed with 2 mL wash buffer (20 mM imidazole, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). The protein was stepwise eluted in 1 mL fractions after applying 2 mL elution buffer to the column (identical to wash buffer but with 50, 100, 250 or 500 mM imidazole). The whole procedure was carried out at 4uC. Fractions were assayed for purity and yield and suitable fractions were dialysed against 26 1L dialysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM DTT) using Slide-A-Lyzer cassettes with a molecular weight cut-off of 3.5 kDa (Pierce).
Proteins were stored at 280uC in storage buffer (identical to dialysis buffer but containing 20% glycerol). Protein concentrations were determined using Bradford reagent (BioRad), according to the manufacturer's instructions.
DNA fragments for use in EMSA experiment were generated by PCR using GoTaq polymerase (Promega) and chromosomal DNA from B. subtilis JH642 (Bacillus Genetic Stock Center 1A96; http://www.bgsc.org), plasmids listed in Table 1 , or chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm [38] as a template. Primers and specific cycling conditions for generation of the EMSA probes are listed in Text S1. DNA fragments of the expected size were isolated from a 16TAE/8% native polyacrylamide gel using diffusion buffer (0.5 M ammonium acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM EDTA pH 8, 0.1% SDS) and a QIAExII kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Recovered DNA was end-labeled with 32P-c-ATP using FR buffer and T4 kinase (Invitrogen) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Specific activity was determined on a LS6000 scintillation counter (Beckman).
EMSA conditions were based on previous studies [10] . In short, binding reactions were carried out in binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 5% glycerol) in the presence of 200 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (NEB) and 200 cpm/mL radiolabeled DNA fragment. Reactions were incubated for 20 minutes at 30uC prior to loading on a 16TAE/8% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel that was prerun for 20 minutes at 50 V in 16 TAE buffer. Electrophoresis was carried out for 120 min at 85 V. After vacuum drying the gels onto filter paper, they were imaged after overnight exposure on Phosphorimager screens on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare).
The toxic effects of C. difficile culture supernatants on Vero cells (a kind gift of Eric Snijder [39] ) were determined as follows. Supernatant from a bacterial culture was harvested by centrifuging cells for 3 minutes at 140006g and filtered on a 0.45 mM cellulose acetate filter using a syringe. Supernatants were 2-fold serially diluted in cell culture medium (Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (Lonza) supplemented with 100 mg/mL penicillin, 100 U/mL streptomycin, 10% fetal calf serum), before applying them to a monolayer of Vero cells, and incubation was continued for another hour. As a positive control, 50 mL 1:10 diluted purified toxin (Techlab) was added to the cells. To determine if observed cytotoxic effects were specific for the large clostridial toxins, commercially available anti-toxin against TcdA and TcdB (Techlab) was added to 10-fold diluted bacterial supernatant for 60 min prior to incubation on the Vero cells. Toxin end-point titres were defined as the lowest dilution at which no cytopathological effects (cell rounding) were observed.
Statistical significance was evaluated with an independent sample t-test.
Immunization of mice with full length C. difficile Spo0A-6xHis was kindly performed at the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute (Hinxton, UK). Cells from 1 mL of C. difficile culture were collected by centrifugation for 1 min at 14000 rpm in a table top centrifuge and resuspended in 200 mL resuspension buffer (10 mM Tris HCl pH 8, 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mg/mL lysozyme, 1 mM Pefabloc SC (Roche)). After incubation for 30 mins at 37uC, 50 mL of 56 SDS sample buffer (0.1 M DTT, 2% SDS, 50 mM Tris HCl pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 0.0025% BPB) was added, and samples were heated to 96uC for 5 mins. Total cell lysates (amounts corrected for OD 600 ) were separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel prior to semi-dry blotting for 1 h at 10 V to a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. Membranes were blocked in PBST buffer (phosphate buffered saline with 0.1% v/v Tween-20) containing 5% membrane blocking reagent (Amersham Biosciences). To visualize Spo0A protein cleared polyclonal serum from a single mouse at a 1:3000 dilution was used, followed by either a goat-anti-mouse HRP-conjugated secondary antibody followed by ECL+ detection (Amersham Bioscience), or a goatanti-mouse-biotin-conjugated secondary antibody (Dako) followed by a tertiary mouse-anti-biotin Cy3-conjugated antibody (Jackson). Detection was done using on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare). Background corrected peak volumes were quantified using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences).
Alignments of B. subtilis and C. difficile spo0A were made using ClustalW2 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) on the basis of the published genome sequences, Genbank accession numbers AL009126 and AM180355, respectively, and the 630Derm spo0A sequence as determined in this study. The sequence for spo0A of C. difficile strain 630Derm was deposited in Genbank (accession no JX050222). Consensus Spo0A boxes were identified using a Single string Search command in Genome2D [40] , allowing 0 mismatches. The box positions were linked to upand downstream genes using the ''Add nearest gene to List of DNA Motifs'' feature and Microsoft Excel. The results were manually inspected for those boxes within 500 bp upstream of a gene on the same strand. Figures for publication were prepared using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc) and Corel Graphics Suite X5 (Corel Corporation).
In order to characterize C. difficile Spo0A, the full length protein and its DNA binding domain (DBD) were expressed as a Cterminally 66His-tagged protein in the heterologous host Escherichia coli (Fig. 1A) and purified to near homogeneity using metal affinity chromatography ( Fig. 1A ; lanes P). Full length protein was used to raise antibodies to detect Spo0A in total lysates of C. difficile strains, and the purified DNA binding domain was used in subsequent in vitro binding assays (see below).
We determined the expression of C. difficile Spo0A throughout growth. We found that the protein is present in lysates from exponential to stationary growth phase cells. We performed immunoblotting using polyclonal antibodies against C. difficile Spo0A on total lysates of wild type and spo0A mutant cells grown in a trypton-yeast based medium (TTY). We found a clear signal of the size expected for full length Spo0A (,31 kDa) as early as 3 hours post inoculation (exponential growth phase), through transition phase (8 h) as well as 24 and 48 hours post inoculation (stationary growth phase) ( Figure 1B; 630Derm) . The signals were specific for C. difficile Spo0A as they were absent from lysates from the C. difficile spo0A mutant (Fig. 1B , CT::spo0A). We obtained similar results in other media, such as the commonly used supplemented brain heart infusion broth (BHIS; data not shown).
To determine relative levels of Spo0A throughout growth, we performed an immunoblot experiment using fluorescent antibodies, which gives more quantitative information compared to the use of horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibodies in our hands. We found that the levels of Spo0A increases approximately 20-fold from 6 hours post inoculation and remains at similar levels from 8 to 48 hours post inoculation ( Figure 1C ).
Though it should be noted that the Western blots do not provide information on the phosphorylation state of the protein, we conclude that the protein in active or inactive form is present throughout growth and is more abundant in stationary growth phase.
Spo0A of C. difficile Strain 630Derm Contains a 6aminoacid Duplication BLAST homology searches readily identify a homolog of the well-characterized B. subtilis Spo0A protein in C. difficile 630 (CD1214) and previous work demonstrated that a spo0A mutant (an insertional inactivation of cd1214) -as expected -no longer forms spores [41] . In silico analyses suggest a similar secondary structure for both proteins ( Fig. 2A) , with a conserved dimerization and DNA binding domain, separated by a poorly conserved hinge region [7, 12] .
We compared the sequence of CD1214 obtained from our lab strain 630Derm [38] to that of the published C. difficile 630 genome [42] . Strain 630Derm is a spontaneous erythromycin sensitive strain, which is commonly used in mutagenesis studies and was obtained by serial passaging of strain 630 [33, 38] . The 630Derm spo0A sequence (Genbank accession no JX050222) was derived from the expression plasmids constructed for this study, and confirmed in a whole genome sequence of strain 630Derm generated in our lab (data not shown). We found that 630Derm spo0A contains an 18 base pair direct repeat, resulting in a 6 amino acid (NVGNIE) duplication compared to the published reference sequence. The duplication maps to a region of the protein with relatively low sequence conservation (hinge), flanking the highly conserved DNA binding domain ( Fig. 2A and B) . We verified the absence of this duplication in strain 630 by PCR (Fig. 2C ) as well as sequencing from the chromosomal DNA of C. difficile 630 (data not shown), to rule out an error in the original genome sequence and to demonstrate that the difference in size of the PCR product was specific to the 18 bp insertion. In addition, we checked several other strains of PCR ribotypes 12 (to which 630 and 630Derm belong) by PCR, but the duplication was found to be unique to 630Derm among the isolates tested (data not shown).
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Shows Similar Specificity as B. subtilis Spo0A-DBD Next, we examined the conservation of the DNA binding domain of Spo0A (Spo0A-DBD) between B. subtilis and C. difficile. In B. subtilis amino acid residues contacting the backbone of the DNA and interacting with specific residues of the Spo0A binding sequence have been defined [13] . We found that all these residues were conserved in the C. difficile protein sequence (Fig. 2B) , indicating that the protein likely recognizes a similar motif.
DNA binding by full length Spo0A in B. subtilis requires phosphorylation dependent dimerization [8, 9] . However, it was shown that the isolated DBD is capable of binding to legitimate targets of the full length protein [10] . Analogously, we purified the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD for use in in vitro binding assays. As no direct targets for the C. difficile protein have been reported so far, we used the upstream region of the abrB gene (PabrB) of B. subtilis. PabrB is commonly used as a high-affinity control in binding assays with the B. subtilis Spo0A or Spo0A-DBD protein [43, 44] . It is noteworthy that we failed to identify a homolog of abrB in C. difficile using BLAST, indicating that potential indirect regulation by Spo0A cannot occur through abrB in C. difficile as it does in B. subtilis. We found that C. difficile Spo0A-DBD bound with high affinity to PabrB (Fig. 2D and E) . We performed electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) using radiolabeled PabrB and increasing amounts of purified C. difficile Spo0A-DBD that was purified using a C-terminal 66His-tag. The addition of protein leads to a dose-dependent retardation of the DNA fragment with an apparent K D of ,50 nM. In the same range of protein concentrations, no binding was observed for a negative control (a DNA fragment of B. subtilis citG [45] ) (Fig. 2E) , suggesting that binding was specific for the abrB promoter region.
B. subtilis Spo0A recognizes a distinct sequence (0A box), that is characterized by a 7 bp core motif (TGTCGAA) [10, 11] . Structural studies have revealed that the protein makes specific contacts with the G at position 2 (G2), and the C at position 4 (C4) and 5 (G5) of this motif [13] . We introduced G2A, C4A, G5A, G2A/C4A and C4A/G5A mutations in the perfect consensus core 0A-box present in PabrB. We found that the affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for these mutated PabrB fragments was highly reduced (Fig. 2E) . We performed EMSAs using radiolabeled PabrB containing the mutated core sequence. For the single point mutations in the DNA, the affinity decreased ,10-fold. There did not seem to be an additive effect of a second point mutation for the two combinations tested. None of the mutations abolished binding of C. difficile Spo0A completely, most likely as the result of binding of Spo0A to other (non-consensus) 0A boxes in the abrB promoter [44] .
Taken together, we conclude that the guanine and cytosine residues in the core TGTCGAA motif of PabrB are important for specific binding of this fragment by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD.
Value for Binding by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Above, we have established that the Spo0A-DBD of C. difficile is highly homologous to that of the B. subtilis Spo0A protein, and that the proteins recognize a similar consensus sequence (Fig. 2 ). Based on this information, we identified the several genes as putative direct targets of C. difficile Spo0A.
We queried the C. difficile 630 genome sequence for perfect matches to the core 0A box using Genome2D [40] . Such an analysis revealed the presence of 102 matching motifs, of which 45 were located within 500 bp of the initiating ATG of an open reading frame on the same strand (see Table S1 ). Our attention was drawn to spo0A and sigH, as these two genes were previously found to be regulated by Spo0A in B. subtilis and/or play important roles in sporulation [3, [46] [47] [48] . We found that C. difficile Spo0A bound to DNA sequences upstream of spo0A and sigH.
We performed EMSAs with DNA encompassing 220-281 bp upstream of the initiating ATG codon of the spo0A, sigH and spoVG open reading frames. We found that the addition of Spo0A-DBD to the reactions caused retardation of the spo0A and sigH DNA fragments (Fig. 3A) , but not of a spoVG fragment which did not contain a consensus 0A box (Fig. 3B) . It should be noted that the affinity of Spo0A-DBD for the region upstream of spo0A was the highest we have observed so far for any C. difficile DNA. Moreover, the presence of multiple shifted species could indicate the presence of more than one strong binding site. These results establish that spo0A and sigH are likely legitimate targets of Spo0A in C. difficile, and confirm that spoVG is not, in line with results obtained in B. subtilis [10] .
We were interested to see if Spo0A in C. difficile could potentially regulate genes that have no documented function in sporulation. Our in silico analysis identified several genes with no obvious link to sporulation that had a consensus 0A box within 100 bp upstream of their start codon. This positioning is similar to that observed for spo0A (275) and sigH (278). We confirmed in vitro binding of the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD to the promoter regions of lplA and ssuA.
We carried out EMSA experiments using probes that included the perfect consensus site and purified Spo0A-DBD protein. We observed binding of the protein to fragments upstream of the lplA gene (CD1654; box at 267) and the ssuA gene (CD1484; box at 282) (Fig. 3A) . The lplA gene encodes a predicted lipoate-protein ligase, and ssuA is annotated as an aliphatic sulfonates ABC transporter; to our knowledge, neither of these have been directly implicated in sporulation or have found to be targets for Spo0A in other organisms.
Together our results establish the potential for binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, two genes that are important for sporulation, and indicate that Spo0A may have functions that go beyond the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile.
It has been established that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile does not produce any spores, consistent with a crucial role in the sporulation pathway [33] . However, the in silico identification of upstream regions with a consensus Spo0A binding site did not point to any of the early sporulation genes (downstream of spo0A itself) as direct targets of Spo0A. This is likely the result of variations in the 0A-box in these promoters that were disregarded in the box search. In support of this, many well-characterized legitimate direct targets of B. subtilis Spo0A (such as spoIIAA and spoIIE) do not contain a 100% match to the core motif, but rather one or more near-consensus boxes [5, 49] . We found that Spo0A- We performed EMSA experiments using increasing amounts of purified Spo0A-DBD from C. difficile 630Derm and the DNA fragments indicated above (Fig. 3B ). For spoIIAA (encoding an antianti sigma-factor) and spoIIE (encoding a serine phosphatase), we observed a low intensity shifted species at concentrations as low as 150 nM. For spoIIGA (encoding a sporulation specific protease) we observed the shifted species only at higher concentrations of protein (.200 nM). The negative control (spoVG) did not demonstrate binding of Spo0A-DBD at these concentrations. Moreover, the shift we observed was reversible using unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not using unlabeled DNA that lacked such a site ( Figure S1B-D) . Therefore, we consider the binding to spoIIAA, spoIIE and spoIIGA genes to be specific, despite the fact that increasing the amount of protein did not seem to cause a significant increase in the amount of DNA in the complex.
Together, these results suggest that Spo0A in C. difficile might regulate the transcription of at least a subset of early sporulation genes by direct binding to their promoter regions.
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Binds to DNA Upstream of tcdB It has previously been reported that the deletion of Spo0A in C. difficile results in a significantly lower toxin production and a ,1000-fold reduction in the toxicity of culture supernatant derived from spo0A negative cells towards Vero cells [35] . Considering the absence of a homolog of the abrB repressor, direct binding of Spo0A and concomitant activation of toxin gene transcription is a likely mechanism through which this could occur. We found evidence for direct binding of Spo0A-DBD to the region upstream of tcdB, encoding one of the major clostridial toxin genes, and possibly tcdC, but this did not seem to result in lower toxin levels in our hands.
We performed EMSAs using DNA upstream of tcdR (encoding a sigma factor responsible for the activation of toxin gene transcription), tcdB (encoding toxin B), tcdA (encoding toxin A). In order to test regions upstream of all open reading frames in the PaLoc, we also tested binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of tcdE (encoding a holin-like protein [50, 51] ) and tcdC (encoding a putative negative regulator of toxin production [52] [53] [54] ), even though this regulator does not have a significant effect on toxin levels under the conditions we used [55, 56] . Of the regions tested, we only observed a clear shifted species, indicative of Spo0A binding, for tcdB ( Figure 4A ); the shifted species in our EMSA assay was reversed by the addition of unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not by DNA lacking such a site ( Figure S1E ). For tcdC, some smearing was observed at all concentrations of proteins tested ( Figure 4A ), and there did not seem to be a clear effect of the addition of unlabeled DNA fragments ( Figure S1F ). The probes for tcdA, tcdE and tcdR were indistinguishable from those obtained with our negative control, spoVG.
We wanted to determine if toxin levels in culture supernatants were directly or indirectly affected by Spo0A, as was previously suggested. We found no lower toxicity towards Vero cells of culture supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type.
We grew three independent biological replicates of a wild type (630Derm) or Clostron-generated spo0A mutant (CT::spo0A -a kind gift of the Minton lab) in glucose-free TTY medium. We harvested culture supernatant at late-exponential phase (approximately 7 hours post inoculation), the transition phase between exponential and stationary growth phase (approximately 9 hours post inoculation), as well as two time points in stationary phase (24 and 48 hours post inoculation) and determined the toxin endpoint titres (see Materials and Methods). In contrast to previous findings, we observed a small (#4-fold) increase in the toxicity of supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type, but in all cases this difference was not statistically significant (p.0.05, independent sample t-test). In other medium (BHIS), we observed no differences at all (data not shown).
We conclude that Spo0A does not positively affect toxin production in C. difficile 630Derm and the in vivo relevance of the binding to regions upstream of tcdB and/or tcdC is therefore limited under our experimental conditions.
The Spo0A-box of C. difficile In B. subtilis, the binding site of Spo0A on target DNA has been well-characterized, through a combination of in vitro binding assays, determination of in vivo binding profiles and mutagenesis of regulated promoter sequences. This work has led to the identification of a conserved core motif, TGTCGAA, or Spo0A box [5, 10, 11, 45] . Depending on the analysis, this motif is flanked by one or more adenine or thymine residues [10, 11] . Interestingly, many target genes do not harbor a perfect match to this consensus sequence, but rather contain one or more degenerate motifs. The differences in these motifs may reflect different promoter architectures (e.g. AT content), modes of action (e.g. activation or repression) or levels of regulation. Spo0A genes in B. subtilis can be divided in different classes that respond to different levels of phosphorylated Spo0A [43, 57] .
For C. difficile, we conclude that the Spo0A protein likely recognizes a motif that is similar to the B. subtilis Spo0A box on the basis of four lines of evidence; 1. All DNA binding/contacting residues are conserved (Fig. 2B) , 2. C. difficile Spo0A can bind with high affinity to a target of B. subtilis Spo0A (Fig. 2D) , 3. Mutagenesis of key residues in the B. subtilis Spo0A box reduces affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for DNA (Fig. 2E ) and 4. A B. subtilis Spo0A box has predictive value for DNA binding by C. difficile Spo0A (Fig. 3A) . It is conceivable that our model system, using the purified DNA binding domain, does not accurately reflect binding to all target sites, if target site selectivity is determined in part by other parts by of the full length protein. It is likely that differences do exist between the preferred binding sites for both proteins that will be evident when a comprehensive analysis is performed of in vivo DNA binding of C. difficile Spo0A; based on the limited data set of this study, a MEME analysis [58] already suggests possible differences in the extended Spo0A motif (W.K. Smits, unpublished observations). These differences may relate to the much higher AT content of C. difficile compared to B. subtilis (71 vs. 56.5%, respectively), or phosphorylation dependent dimerization, for instance.
The initiation of sporulation in B. subtilis is subject to complex regulation (for review see ref [1, 59] ). The activation of Spo0A is controlled by a multi-component phosphorelay that can integrate environmental cues [60] and ensures a gradual increase in the level of phosphorylated Spo0A in the cell [57] . In addition, the transcription of the spo0A gene is controlled by multiple feedback loops. For instance, Spo0A regulates its own transcription by binding to the spo0A promoter [46] , as well as by indirectly stimulating the transcription of sigH, encoding a sigma factor that recognizes the spo0A promoter [48] .
In C. difficile, there are some interesting differences and similarities in the regulatory pathways. Most notably, there seems to be no phosphorelay [2] and the phosphorylation state of Spo0A is supposedly controlled by orphan histidine kinases [35] . The transcription of spo0A in C. difficile is under control of the transition state sigma factor Sigma H [37] , as it is in B. subtilis [61] . Our data indicate that both spo0A and sigH could be targets for direct regulation by Spo0A in C. difficile (Fig. 3A) , raising the possibility of auto-regulation of spo0A. The putative direct regulation of sigH by Spo0A may reflect that the C. difficile genome does not harbor a homolog of the pleiotropic regulator AbrB, which is responsible for the Spo0A-dependent regulation of sigH in B. subtilis [48] . Consistent with a model in which spo0A is positively autoregulated, we noted a sharp increase in the levels of Spo0A as cells approach the stationary growth phase ( Figure 1C) .
Downstream of Spo0A, we found binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of several early sporulation genes, such as spoIIAA, spoIIE, and spoIIGA (Fig. 3B ). All these observations are consistent with direct regulation of these genes by Spo0A in other organisms [5, 45, 49, 62] , and the conservation of the sporulation pathway [2] .
Though Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation in Firmicutes, it regulates numerous other processes in various bacteria. In the non-pathogenic B. subtilis, for instance, the protein also affects competence development, biofilm formation, the production of and resistance to antimicrobial compounds, chromosome dynamics and aspects of phage biology [10, [14] [15] [16] . Importantly, several of these processes are indirectly regulated, through the Spo0A-dependent repression of abrB. Additionally, transcription of abrB responds already to low levels of Spo0A,P [43] . As a result these effects are detectable in late-exponential and early stationary phase, as some Spo0A is present throughout growth in B. subtilis cells.
Though abrB is absent from C. difficile, this does not exclude the possibility of indirect transcriptional regulation through Spo0Adependent effects on other regulators. Alternatively, Spo0A may exert a direct effect. In Clostridium acetobutylicum and C. beijerinckii, Spo0A is a direct regulator of solvent formation, as well as sporulation [22, 23] . It seems therefore conceivable that Spo0A in C. difficile also affects aspects of metabolism. In this respect, it is important to note that also in C. difficile Spo0A is detectable from early exponential growth phase on ( Figure 1B) .
We observed direct binding of C. difficile Spo0A to the promoter region of sigH (Fig. 3A) . This gene encodes the key sigma factor for the transition phase, and regulates processes outside sporulation as well [37] . Moreover, we found significant levels of Spo0A from early stationary phase on ( Fig. 1B and unpublished observations) , indicating the regulatory actions of Spo0A need not be limited to stationary phase in C. difficile. In line with this idea, we found a potential regulatory link between Spo0A and two genes that to our knowledge are not related to the sporulation process, the lipoate ligase lplA and the aliphatic sulfonates transporter ssuA (Fig. 3A) . The presence of a putative Spo0A binding site upstream of these genes, as well as the spacing compared to the start codon, is conserved in the problematic Stoke-Mandeville strain (R20291), a member of PCR ribotype 27. This could indicate that these aspects of regulation by Spo0A are conserved in multiple strains of C. difficile.
It should be noted that our work so far has been limited to an in vitro analysis of Spo0A binding, and therefore does not indicate whether activation or repression of the putative target genes occurs in vivo. To answer this question, detailed transcriptome and/or proteome studies have to be performed. In order to distinguish direct from indirect effects, in vivo binding profiles of Spo0A should be performed. The antibodies generated for this study should prove to be useful for this type of experiments.
Amongst the pathogenic Firmicutes, Spo0A has been reported to affect toxin production in multiple species. In B. anthracis a spo0A mutation results in elevated levels of AbrB, and concomitantly lower levels of the toxin genes pagA, cya and lef that are under AbrB control [17] . Similarly, the production of the emetic toxin cereulide in B. cereus is greatly repressed in a spo0A mutant, in an AbrB-dependent manner [63] . In contrast, Spo0A directly represses the expression of the cry toxin genes in B. thuringiensis and a spo0A mutant is therefore a hyper-producer of the insecticidal crystal protein [18, 21] . In Clostridium perfringens TpeL, a member of the large clostridial toxins just like TcdA and TcdB, is directly dependent on Spo0A [64] and also the production of enterotoxin in this organism seems to be (indirectly) dependent on sporulation [65, 66] .
In C. difficile an insertional spo0A mutant generated using Clostron technology was reported to have ,10-fold reduced levels of toxin A (TcdA), both intracellularly and extracellularly as well as ,1000-fold reduced toxicity towards Vero cells, which are primarily sensitive towards toxin B (TcdB) [35] . Our in vitro binding data indicate a potential binding site for Spo0A upstream of tcdB and possibly tcdC (Fig. 4A) . However, the in vivo relevance of this binding seems limited as in our hands an independently derived but otherwise identical mutant (a kind gift of the Minton lab; [33] ) did not demonstrate a reduced toxicity towards Vero cells. In contrast, we found that in TTY medium toxin levels were slightly elevated in spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type (#2fold in exponential phase cells up to 4-fold in late-stationary phase cells). The small, and not significant, differences in toxin levels in our experiments might be attributed to differences in the susceptibility of cells for lysis rather than the production of toxin, but could also indicate a negative regulatory effect of Spo0A on toxin production. In support of the latter hypothesis, it was recently reported that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile strain R20291 (a PCR ribotypes 027/BI/NAP1 epidemic strain) demonstrates ,10fold higher toxin levels than its isogenic wild type 30 h post inoculation, and is significantly more virulent in a mouse model of disease [34] .
The differences between Underwood et al [35] on the one hand and our study as well as the study of Deakin and coworkers [34] on the other hand may be explained by differences in experimental conditions, such as the medium used. However, we observed no difference in cytotoxicity between supernatant derived from wild type or spo0A mutant cells when they were grown in BHIS, a medium nearly identical to that used previously (data not shown). Alternatively, the differences could indicate integration of the group II intron at more than one location in the chromosome in the strain used in Underwood et al [35] . In the absence of a complementation experiment and/or Southern blot data, this remains to be established.
In summary, our data are consistent with a model in which the regulation of the major clostridial toxins in C. difficile is not positively affected by Spo0A, in contrast to previous findings and other pathogenic Clostridia. Whether Spo0A is truly a negative regulator of toxin production remains to be confirmed using in vitro and in vivo transcription assays.
In the present study we have for the first time demonstrated direct binding of the DNA binding domain of C. difficile Spo0A to putative target DNA. This work has revealed that aspects of Spo0A binding are conserved between Bacillus and C. difficile (0A box, possible auto-regulation and binding to early sporulation promoters), whereas others are not (the absence of abrB as a direct target in C. difficile, binding to DNA upstream of lplA, ssuA). The effects of Spo0A on toxin production may be similar to those observed for B. thuringiensis [18, 21] . Future work will be aimed at determining the effect of Spo0A on the transcription of the putative target genes, and carry out a comprehensive analysis of Spo0A binding in vivo. The identification of genes affected by Spo0A in C. difficile may shed light on the role of the protein in virulence and pathogenesis of this organism.
Figure S1 Specificity controls for binding by Spo0A-DBD-his6. Arrows indicate the position of shifted species (DNA:protein complexes). Titrations with PCR fragments of PabrB (containing a high affinity binding site) and PtcdA (lacking such a site) correspond to approximately 0.1 nM/mL -0.03 nM/ mL. A. Comparison of binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6, Spo0A-his6 and CD2195-his6 binding to the upstream region of spoIIAA. B. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIAA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA). C. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIE is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. D. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIGA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. E. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdB is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. F. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdC is not or moderately affected by the addition of PabrB and/or PtcdA. (TIF) Text S1 Oligonucleotides used in this study and PCR cycling conditions for the EMSA probes. (PDF) | What is Clodstridium difficile? | 913 | Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium | 433 |
1,667 | C. difficile 630Δerm Spo0A Regulates Sporulation, but Does Not Contribute to Toxin Production, by Direct High-Affinity Binding to Target DNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485338/
SHA: f0fb3bbd96dad4c907c7fd456cd5783ed8fa7bd6
Authors: Rosenbusch, Katharina E.; Bakker, Dennis; Kuijper, Ed J.; Smits, Wiep Klaas
Date: 2012-10-31
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048608
License: cc-by
Abstract: Clostridium difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that can form highly resistant endospores. The bacterium is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI), for which the symptoms can range from a mild diarrhea to potentially fatal pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon. Endospore formation in Firmicutes, including C. difficile, is governed by the key regulator for sporulation, Spo0A. In Bacillus subtilis, this transcription factor is also directly or indirectly involved in various other cellular processes. Here, we report that C. difficile Spo0A shows a high degree of similarity to the well characterized B. subtilis protein and recognizes a similar binding sequence. We find that the laboratory strain C. difficile 630Δerm contains an 18bp-duplication near the DNA-binding domain compared to its ancestral strain 630. In vitro binding assays using purified C-terminal DNA binding domain of the C. difficile Spo0A protein demonstrate direct binding to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, early sporulation genes and several other putative targets. In vitro binding assays suggest that the gene encoding the major clostridial toxin TcdB may be a direct target of Spo0A, but supernatant derived from a spo0A negative strain was no less toxic towards Vero cells than that obtained from a wild type strain, in contrast to previous reports. These results identify for the first time direct (putative) targets of the Spo0A protein in C. difficile and make a positive effect of Spo0A on production of the large clostridial toxins unlikely.
Text: Sporulation is an adaptive strategy that enables bacteria to survive harsh environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time, and is an integral part of the transmission of sporulating pathogens and their tolerance and resistance towards antimicrobial compounds.
Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation [1, 2] . Most of our knowledge about the protein is based on work in Bacilli. Spo0A is a response regulator that demonstrates phosphorylation dependent binding to DNA [3] [4] [5] . Phosphorylation occurs through the concerted action of several proteins that together form a so called phosphorelay [6] . The signaling cascade allows for the integration of environmental signals into the regulation of Spo0A dependent processes, including sporulation. The two functional domains, the N-terminal phosphorylation and dimerization domain (receiver domain), and the C-terminal DNA binding (effector) domain are separated by a hinge region that is relatively poorly conserved [7] . Phosphorylation is believed to result in a structural rearrangement that facilitates dimerization [8, 9] , resulting in the disruption of transcription-inhibitory contacts between the receiver and effector domains. The isolated DNA binding domain can bind legitimate targets of the Spo0A protein due to the absence of the transcription inhibitory contacts, thereby bypassing the need for phosphorylation [10] . Extensive characterization of Spo0A targets has revealed a motif that represents a high affinity Spo0A binding site, the 0A box [10, 11] . The crystal structure of the DNA binding domain confirms specific and non-specific contacts between the protein and the consensus sequence [12, 13] . It is noteworthy that Spo0A regulates many other processes than sporulation, such as competence for genetic transformation, DNA replication, and biofilm formation in B. subtilis [14] [15] [16] , virulence factors and stress responses in for instance B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] , and solvent production in Clostridium acetobutylicum [22, 23] .
C. difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI) (for recent reviews see [24, 25] ). Though many people are asymptomatically colonized by C. difficile, the bacterium can cause serious health problems, such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, under the influence of risk factors such as age and antibiotic use. As a result, CDI was long regarded a nosocomial infection. Recently, however, an increase in the cases of community acquired CDI can be observed [26] . Outbreaks of CDI have been linked to so called hypervirulent strains, such as PCR ribotypes 027 (BI/ NAP1) and 078 [27, 28] . Its main virulence factors are the major clostridial toxins A and B [29, 30] . In addition, certain strains of C. difficile, including ribotypes 027 and 078, additionally encode a binary toxin [31, 32] . C. difficile is transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is believed that spores are crucial to successfully infect new hosts, as they are able to withstand the harsh environment of the stomach, and survive antibiotic treatments that alter the endogenous flora, after which C. difficile can overgrow [24, 25] .
There is limited knowledge about the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile. It has been reported that spo0A, as expected, is required for the formation of spores [33] and the gene is required for persistence and transmission in mice [34] . Though the pathways downstream of Spo0A seem to a large extent conserved between B. subtilis and Clostridia, this is less so for the pathways leading to activation of Spo0A [2] . It has been suggested that the orphan histidine kinase CD2492 is involved in the activation of Spo0A [35] . Similarly, it was reported that multiple orphan histidine kinases can phosphorylate Spo0A in C. acetobutylicum [36] . Recently, it was reported that spo0A can be transcribed from a SigH-dependent promoter [37] . It is unknown which genes are regulated by direct binding of Spo0A to their upstream regions.
Here, we establish an in vitro binding assay for C. difficile Spo0A and demonstrate for the first time direct binding of this transcription factor to DNA upstream of several putative target genes.
Escherichia coli strains were routinely grown in Luria-Bertani broth or plates, supplemented with appropriate antibiotics. Chloramphenicol was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL for agar plates and 10 mg/mL for liquid cultures. Ampicillin was used at a final concentration of 100 mg/mL. Kanamycin was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL. Cloning was carried out using E. coli DH5a, overexpression was performed in E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). C. difficile strains were grown in a glucose-free trypton-yeast based medium (TTY; 3% w/v bactotrypton (BD), 2% yeast extract (Fluka), 0.1% w/v thioglycollate (Sigma) pH 7.4), supplemented with 20 mg/mL of lincomycin when appropriate, or on CLO or TSS plates (Biomerieux).
All plasmids are listed in Table 1 . Primers (obtained from Sigma Aldrich) are listed in Text S1 and specific cycling conditions are available on request. Unless noted otherwise, PCR reactions were carried out using Pfu polymerase (Fermentas) according to the instructions of the manufacturer.
Plasmid pWKS1251, for the overproduction of Spo0A-DBD carrying a C-terminal 66His-tag, was constructed as follows. A sequence corresponding to the DNA binding domain of Spo0A was amplified using primers oWKS-1123a and oWKS-1124 using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile strain 630Derm as a template. The resulting fragment was cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO (Invitrogen), yielding pWKS1247. This plasmid was digested with NdeI and XhoI, separated on a 1% agarose/0.56 TAE (20 mM Tris Acetate, 0.5 mM EDTA) gel, the fragment corresponding to the DNA binding domain was recovered by gel-isolation (using a GeneJET Gel Extraction kit, Fermentas) and cloned into similarly digested pMF14 [10] that had been gel-isolated in the same manner. The construct was verified by PCR, restriction analyses and DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-135 and oWKS-136 (see below).
Plasmid pWKS1245, for the production of full length Spo0A carrying a C-terminal 6xHis-tag, was constructed in a similar manner using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm as a template, but using the PCR product of primers oWKS-1122 and oWKS-1123a.
Plasmids used as PCR templates for generating EMSA probes were constructed by cloning the PCR products into pCR2.1-TOPO. The inserts, and in the case of the mutated PabrB promoters the presence of the desired point mutations in the consensus 0A box, were verified by DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-24 and oWKS-25 (see below).
Sequence grade plasmids were isolated using a Nucleospin Plasmid QuickPure kit (Macherey Nagel) according to the manufacturer's instructions, except that two lysis reactions were combined onto a single filter and eluted with 65uC prewarmed AE buffer. All constructs were sequenced using BigDye Terminator chemistry (Invitrogen) on an ABI3130 sequencer (Perkin Elmer), according to the instructions of the manufacturers. In short, ,200 ng of plasmid was mixed with 3.2 pmol of primer, 1 mL Terminator Ready Reaction Mix (Invitrogen) in a final volume of 20 mL. After thermocycling, DNA was precipitated and washed with 65% isopropanol, and dissolved in 12 mL HiDi formamid (Invitrogen) at 96uC for 2 mins and stored in the dark at 4uC until the sequencing run. Sequence analyses were performed in CloneManager Professional Suite 7 (SciEd) and Geneious version 5.6.2 (Biomatters Ltd).
Plasmids pWKS1245 and pWKS1251 were transformed into E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). Transformants were used to inoculate 25 mL of LB with appropriate antibiotics. After overnight incubation, the cells were 1:100 diluted in 500 mL fresh medium containing appropriate antibiotics. Protein production was induced with 1 mM IPTG at an OD600 of 0.7 and growth was continued for another three hours before harvesting. Cells were washed with ice cold PBS and stored at 280uC for later use. Purification of the proteins was essentially done as described [10] . In short, cells were disrupted in 4 mL lysis buffer (2 mM PMSF, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). Cleared cell lysates we incubated with 2 mL pre-equilibrated 50% TALON slurry (Clontech) in a final volume of 15 mL lysis buffer for 1 hr. The resin was allowed to settle on a Poly-Prep column (BioRad) and washed with 2 mL wash buffer (20 mM imidazole, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). The protein was stepwise eluted in 1 mL fractions after applying 2 mL elution buffer to the column (identical to wash buffer but with 50, 100, 250 or 500 mM imidazole). The whole procedure was carried out at 4uC. Fractions were assayed for purity and yield and suitable fractions were dialysed against 26 1L dialysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM DTT) using Slide-A-Lyzer cassettes with a molecular weight cut-off of 3.5 kDa (Pierce).
Proteins were stored at 280uC in storage buffer (identical to dialysis buffer but containing 20% glycerol). Protein concentrations were determined using Bradford reagent (BioRad), according to the manufacturer's instructions.
DNA fragments for use in EMSA experiment were generated by PCR using GoTaq polymerase (Promega) and chromosomal DNA from B. subtilis JH642 (Bacillus Genetic Stock Center 1A96; http://www.bgsc.org), plasmids listed in Table 1 , or chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm [38] as a template. Primers and specific cycling conditions for generation of the EMSA probes are listed in Text S1. DNA fragments of the expected size were isolated from a 16TAE/8% native polyacrylamide gel using diffusion buffer (0.5 M ammonium acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM EDTA pH 8, 0.1% SDS) and a QIAExII kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Recovered DNA was end-labeled with 32P-c-ATP using FR buffer and T4 kinase (Invitrogen) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Specific activity was determined on a LS6000 scintillation counter (Beckman).
EMSA conditions were based on previous studies [10] . In short, binding reactions were carried out in binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 5% glycerol) in the presence of 200 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (NEB) and 200 cpm/mL radiolabeled DNA fragment. Reactions were incubated for 20 minutes at 30uC prior to loading on a 16TAE/8% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel that was prerun for 20 minutes at 50 V in 16 TAE buffer. Electrophoresis was carried out for 120 min at 85 V. After vacuum drying the gels onto filter paper, they were imaged after overnight exposure on Phosphorimager screens on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare).
The toxic effects of C. difficile culture supernatants on Vero cells (a kind gift of Eric Snijder [39] ) were determined as follows. Supernatant from a bacterial culture was harvested by centrifuging cells for 3 minutes at 140006g and filtered on a 0.45 mM cellulose acetate filter using a syringe. Supernatants were 2-fold serially diluted in cell culture medium (Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (Lonza) supplemented with 100 mg/mL penicillin, 100 U/mL streptomycin, 10% fetal calf serum), before applying them to a monolayer of Vero cells, and incubation was continued for another hour. As a positive control, 50 mL 1:10 diluted purified toxin (Techlab) was added to the cells. To determine if observed cytotoxic effects were specific for the large clostridial toxins, commercially available anti-toxin against TcdA and TcdB (Techlab) was added to 10-fold diluted bacterial supernatant for 60 min prior to incubation on the Vero cells. Toxin end-point titres were defined as the lowest dilution at which no cytopathological effects (cell rounding) were observed.
Statistical significance was evaluated with an independent sample t-test.
Immunization of mice with full length C. difficile Spo0A-6xHis was kindly performed at the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute (Hinxton, UK). Cells from 1 mL of C. difficile culture were collected by centrifugation for 1 min at 14000 rpm in a table top centrifuge and resuspended in 200 mL resuspension buffer (10 mM Tris HCl pH 8, 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mg/mL lysozyme, 1 mM Pefabloc SC (Roche)). After incubation for 30 mins at 37uC, 50 mL of 56 SDS sample buffer (0.1 M DTT, 2% SDS, 50 mM Tris HCl pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 0.0025% BPB) was added, and samples were heated to 96uC for 5 mins. Total cell lysates (amounts corrected for OD 600 ) were separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel prior to semi-dry blotting for 1 h at 10 V to a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. Membranes were blocked in PBST buffer (phosphate buffered saline with 0.1% v/v Tween-20) containing 5% membrane blocking reagent (Amersham Biosciences). To visualize Spo0A protein cleared polyclonal serum from a single mouse at a 1:3000 dilution was used, followed by either a goat-anti-mouse HRP-conjugated secondary antibody followed by ECL+ detection (Amersham Bioscience), or a goatanti-mouse-biotin-conjugated secondary antibody (Dako) followed by a tertiary mouse-anti-biotin Cy3-conjugated antibody (Jackson). Detection was done using on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare). Background corrected peak volumes were quantified using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences).
Alignments of B. subtilis and C. difficile spo0A were made using ClustalW2 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) on the basis of the published genome sequences, Genbank accession numbers AL009126 and AM180355, respectively, and the 630Derm spo0A sequence as determined in this study. The sequence for spo0A of C. difficile strain 630Derm was deposited in Genbank (accession no JX050222). Consensus Spo0A boxes were identified using a Single string Search command in Genome2D [40] , allowing 0 mismatches. The box positions were linked to upand downstream genes using the ''Add nearest gene to List of DNA Motifs'' feature and Microsoft Excel. The results were manually inspected for those boxes within 500 bp upstream of a gene on the same strand. Figures for publication were prepared using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc) and Corel Graphics Suite X5 (Corel Corporation).
In order to characterize C. difficile Spo0A, the full length protein and its DNA binding domain (DBD) were expressed as a Cterminally 66His-tagged protein in the heterologous host Escherichia coli (Fig. 1A) and purified to near homogeneity using metal affinity chromatography ( Fig. 1A ; lanes P). Full length protein was used to raise antibodies to detect Spo0A in total lysates of C. difficile strains, and the purified DNA binding domain was used in subsequent in vitro binding assays (see below).
We determined the expression of C. difficile Spo0A throughout growth. We found that the protein is present in lysates from exponential to stationary growth phase cells. We performed immunoblotting using polyclonal antibodies against C. difficile Spo0A on total lysates of wild type and spo0A mutant cells grown in a trypton-yeast based medium (TTY). We found a clear signal of the size expected for full length Spo0A (,31 kDa) as early as 3 hours post inoculation (exponential growth phase), through transition phase (8 h) as well as 24 and 48 hours post inoculation (stationary growth phase) ( Figure 1B; 630Derm) . The signals were specific for C. difficile Spo0A as they were absent from lysates from the C. difficile spo0A mutant (Fig. 1B , CT::spo0A). We obtained similar results in other media, such as the commonly used supplemented brain heart infusion broth (BHIS; data not shown).
To determine relative levels of Spo0A throughout growth, we performed an immunoblot experiment using fluorescent antibodies, which gives more quantitative information compared to the use of horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibodies in our hands. We found that the levels of Spo0A increases approximately 20-fold from 6 hours post inoculation and remains at similar levels from 8 to 48 hours post inoculation ( Figure 1C ).
Though it should be noted that the Western blots do not provide information on the phosphorylation state of the protein, we conclude that the protein in active or inactive form is present throughout growth and is more abundant in stationary growth phase.
Spo0A of C. difficile Strain 630Derm Contains a 6aminoacid Duplication BLAST homology searches readily identify a homolog of the well-characterized B. subtilis Spo0A protein in C. difficile 630 (CD1214) and previous work demonstrated that a spo0A mutant (an insertional inactivation of cd1214) -as expected -no longer forms spores [41] . In silico analyses suggest a similar secondary structure for both proteins ( Fig. 2A) , with a conserved dimerization and DNA binding domain, separated by a poorly conserved hinge region [7, 12] .
We compared the sequence of CD1214 obtained from our lab strain 630Derm [38] to that of the published C. difficile 630 genome [42] . Strain 630Derm is a spontaneous erythromycin sensitive strain, which is commonly used in mutagenesis studies and was obtained by serial passaging of strain 630 [33, 38] . The 630Derm spo0A sequence (Genbank accession no JX050222) was derived from the expression plasmids constructed for this study, and confirmed in a whole genome sequence of strain 630Derm generated in our lab (data not shown). We found that 630Derm spo0A contains an 18 base pair direct repeat, resulting in a 6 amino acid (NVGNIE) duplication compared to the published reference sequence. The duplication maps to a region of the protein with relatively low sequence conservation (hinge), flanking the highly conserved DNA binding domain ( Fig. 2A and B) . We verified the absence of this duplication in strain 630 by PCR (Fig. 2C ) as well as sequencing from the chromosomal DNA of C. difficile 630 (data not shown), to rule out an error in the original genome sequence and to demonstrate that the difference in size of the PCR product was specific to the 18 bp insertion. In addition, we checked several other strains of PCR ribotypes 12 (to which 630 and 630Derm belong) by PCR, but the duplication was found to be unique to 630Derm among the isolates tested (data not shown).
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Shows Similar Specificity as B. subtilis Spo0A-DBD Next, we examined the conservation of the DNA binding domain of Spo0A (Spo0A-DBD) between B. subtilis and C. difficile. In B. subtilis amino acid residues contacting the backbone of the DNA and interacting with specific residues of the Spo0A binding sequence have been defined [13] . We found that all these residues were conserved in the C. difficile protein sequence (Fig. 2B) , indicating that the protein likely recognizes a similar motif.
DNA binding by full length Spo0A in B. subtilis requires phosphorylation dependent dimerization [8, 9] . However, it was shown that the isolated DBD is capable of binding to legitimate targets of the full length protein [10] . Analogously, we purified the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD for use in in vitro binding assays. As no direct targets for the C. difficile protein have been reported so far, we used the upstream region of the abrB gene (PabrB) of B. subtilis. PabrB is commonly used as a high-affinity control in binding assays with the B. subtilis Spo0A or Spo0A-DBD protein [43, 44] . It is noteworthy that we failed to identify a homolog of abrB in C. difficile using BLAST, indicating that potential indirect regulation by Spo0A cannot occur through abrB in C. difficile as it does in B. subtilis. We found that C. difficile Spo0A-DBD bound with high affinity to PabrB (Fig. 2D and E) . We performed electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) using radiolabeled PabrB and increasing amounts of purified C. difficile Spo0A-DBD that was purified using a C-terminal 66His-tag. The addition of protein leads to a dose-dependent retardation of the DNA fragment with an apparent K D of ,50 nM. In the same range of protein concentrations, no binding was observed for a negative control (a DNA fragment of B. subtilis citG [45] ) (Fig. 2E) , suggesting that binding was specific for the abrB promoter region.
B. subtilis Spo0A recognizes a distinct sequence (0A box), that is characterized by a 7 bp core motif (TGTCGAA) [10, 11] . Structural studies have revealed that the protein makes specific contacts with the G at position 2 (G2), and the C at position 4 (C4) and 5 (G5) of this motif [13] . We introduced G2A, C4A, G5A, G2A/C4A and C4A/G5A mutations in the perfect consensus core 0A-box present in PabrB. We found that the affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for these mutated PabrB fragments was highly reduced (Fig. 2E) . We performed EMSAs using radiolabeled PabrB containing the mutated core sequence. For the single point mutations in the DNA, the affinity decreased ,10-fold. There did not seem to be an additive effect of a second point mutation for the two combinations tested. None of the mutations abolished binding of C. difficile Spo0A completely, most likely as the result of binding of Spo0A to other (non-consensus) 0A boxes in the abrB promoter [44] .
Taken together, we conclude that the guanine and cytosine residues in the core TGTCGAA motif of PabrB are important for specific binding of this fragment by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD.
Value for Binding by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Above, we have established that the Spo0A-DBD of C. difficile is highly homologous to that of the B. subtilis Spo0A protein, and that the proteins recognize a similar consensus sequence (Fig. 2 ). Based on this information, we identified the several genes as putative direct targets of C. difficile Spo0A.
We queried the C. difficile 630 genome sequence for perfect matches to the core 0A box using Genome2D [40] . Such an analysis revealed the presence of 102 matching motifs, of which 45 were located within 500 bp of the initiating ATG of an open reading frame on the same strand (see Table S1 ). Our attention was drawn to spo0A and sigH, as these two genes were previously found to be regulated by Spo0A in B. subtilis and/or play important roles in sporulation [3, [46] [47] [48] . We found that C. difficile Spo0A bound to DNA sequences upstream of spo0A and sigH.
We performed EMSAs with DNA encompassing 220-281 bp upstream of the initiating ATG codon of the spo0A, sigH and spoVG open reading frames. We found that the addition of Spo0A-DBD to the reactions caused retardation of the spo0A and sigH DNA fragments (Fig. 3A) , but not of a spoVG fragment which did not contain a consensus 0A box (Fig. 3B) . It should be noted that the affinity of Spo0A-DBD for the region upstream of spo0A was the highest we have observed so far for any C. difficile DNA. Moreover, the presence of multiple shifted species could indicate the presence of more than one strong binding site. These results establish that spo0A and sigH are likely legitimate targets of Spo0A in C. difficile, and confirm that spoVG is not, in line with results obtained in B. subtilis [10] .
We were interested to see if Spo0A in C. difficile could potentially regulate genes that have no documented function in sporulation. Our in silico analysis identified several genes with no obvious link to sporulation that had a consensus 0A box within 100 bp upstream of their start codon. This positioning is similar to that observed for spo0A (275) and sigH (278). We confirmed in vitro binding of the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD to the promoter regions of lplA and ssuA.
We carried out EMSA experiments using probes that included the perfect consensus site and purified Spo0A-DBD protein. We observed binding of the protein to fragments upstream of the lplA gene (CD1654; box at 267) and the ssuA gene (CD1484; box at 282) (Fig. 3A) . The lplA gene encodes a predicted lipoate-protein ligase, and ssuA is annotated as an aliphatic sulfonates ABC transporter; to our knowledge, neither of these have been directly implicated in sporulation or have found to be targets for Spo0A in other organisms.
Together our results establish the potential for binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, two genes that are important for sporulation, and indicate that Spo0A may have functions that go beyond the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile.
It has been established that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile does not produce any spores, consistent with a crucial role in the sporulation pathway [33] . However, the in silico identification of upstream regions with a consensus Spo0A binding site did not point to any of the early sporulation genes (downstream of spo0A itself) as direct targets of Spo0A. This is likely the result of variations in the 0A-box in these promoters that were disregarded in the box search. In support of this, many well-characterized legitimate direct targets of B. subtilis Spo0A (such as spoIIAA and spoIIE) do not contain a 100% match to the core motif, but rather one or more near-consensus boxes [5, 49] . We found that Spo0A- We performed EMSA experiments using increasing amounts of purified Spo0A-DBD from C. difficile 630Derm and the DNA fragments indicated above (Fig. 3B ). For spoIIAA (encoding an antianti sigma-factor) and spoIIE (encoding a serine phosphatase), we observed a low intensity shifted species at concentrations as low as 150 nM. For spoIIGA (encoding a sporulation specific protease) we observed the shifted species only at higher concentrations of protein (.200 nM). The negative control (spoVG) did not demonstrate binding of Spo0A-DBD at these concentrations. Moreover, the shift we observed was reversible using unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not using unlabeled DNA that lacked such a site ( Figure S1B-D) . Therefore, we consider the binding to spoIIAA, spoIIE and spoIIGA genes to be specific, despite the fact that increasing the amount of protein did not seem to cause a significant increase in the amount of DNA in the complex.
Together, these results suggest that Spo0A in C. difficile might regulate the transcription of at least a subset of early sporulation genes by direct binding to their promoter regions.
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Binds to DNA Upstream of tcdB It has previously been reported that the deletion of Spo0A in C. difficile results in a significantly lower toxin production and a ,1000-fold reduction in the toxicity of culture supernatant derived from spo0A negative cells towards Vero cells [35] . Considering the absence of a homolog of the abrB repressor, direct binding of Spo0A and concomitant activation of toxin gene transcription is a likely mechanism through which this could occur. We found evidence for direct binding of Spo0A-DBD to the region upstream of tcdB, encoding one of the major clostridial toxin genes, and possibly tcdC, but this did not seem to result in lower toxin levels in our hands.
We performed EMSAs using DNA upstream of tcdR (encoding a sigma factor responsible for the activation of toxin gene transcription), tcdB (encoding toxin B), tcdA (encoding toxin A). In order to test regions upstream of all open reading frames in the PaLoc, we also tested binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of tcdE (encoding a holin-like protein [50, 51] ) and tcdC (encoding a putative negative regulator of toxin production [52] [53] [54] ), even though this regulator does not have a significant effect on toxin levels under the conditions we used [55, 56] . Of the regions tested, we only observed a clear shifted species, indicative of Spo0A binding, for tcdB ( Figure 4A ); the shifted species in our EMSA assay was reversed by the addition of unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not by DNA lacking such a site ( Figure S1E ). For tcdC, some smearing was observed at all concentrations of proteins tested ( Figure 4A ), and there did not seem to be a clear effect of the addition of unlabeled DNA fragments ( Figure S1F ). The probes for tcdA, tcdE and tcdR were indistinguishable from those obtained with our negative control, spoVG.
We wanted to determine if toxin levels in culture supernatants were directly or indirectly affected by Spo0A, as was previously suggested. We found no lower toxicity towards Vero cells of culture supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type.
We grew three independent biological replicates of a wild type (630Derm) or Clostron-generated spo0A mutant (CT::spo0A -a kind gift of the Minton lab) in glucose-free TTY medium. We harvested culture supernatant at late-exponential phase (approximately 7 hours post inoculation), the transition phase between exponential and stationary growth phase (approximately 9 hours post inoculation), as well as two time points in stationary phase (24 and 48 hours post inoculation) and determined the toxin endpoint titres (see Materials and Methods). In contrast to previous findings, we observed a small (#4-fold) increase in the toxicity of supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type, but in all cases this difference was not statistically significant (p.0.05, independent sample t-test). In other medium (BHIS), we observed no differences at all (data not shown).
We conclude that Spo0A does not positively affect toxin production in C. difficile 630Derm and the in vivo relevance of the binding to regions upstream of tcdB and/or tcdC is therefore limited under our experimental conditions.
The Spo0A-box of C. difficile In B. subtilis, the binding site of Spo0A on target DNA has been well-characterized, through a combination of in vitro binding assays, determination of in vivo binding profiles and mutagenesis of regulated promoter sequences. This work has led to the identification of a conserved core motif, TGTCGAA, or Spo0A box [5, 10, 11, 45] . Depending on the analysis, this motif is flanked by one or more adenine or thymine residues [10, 11] . Interestingly, many target genes do not harbor a perfect match to this consensus sequence, but rather contain one or more degenerate motifs. The differences in these motifs may reflect different promoter architectures (e.g. AT content), modes of action (e.g. activation or repression) or levels of regulation. Spo0A genes in B. subtilis can be divided in different classes that respond to different levels of phosphorylated Spo0A [43, 57] .
For C. difficile, we conclude that the Spo0A protein likely recognizes a motif that is similar to the B. subtilis Spo0A box on the basis of four lines of evidence; 1. All DNA binding/contacting residues are conserved (Fig. 2B) , 2. C. difficile Spo0A can bind with high affinity to a target of B. subtilis Spo0A (Fig. 2D) , 3. Mutagenesis of key residues in the B. subtilis Spo0A box reduces affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for DNA (Fig. 2E ) and 4. A B. subtilis Spo0A box has predictive value for DNA binding by C. difficile Spo0A (Fig. 3A) . It is conceivable that our model system, using the purified DNA binding domain, does not accurately reflect binding to all target sites, if target site selectivity is determined in part by other parts by of the full length protein. It is likely that differences do exist between the preferred binding sites for both proteins that will be evident when a comprehensive analysis is performed of in vivo DNA binding of C. difficile Spo0A; based on the limited data set of this study, a MEME analysis [58] already suggests possible differences in the extended Spo0A motif (W.K. Smits, unpublished observations). These differences may relate to the much higher AT content of C. difficile compared to B. subtilis (71 vs. 56.5%, respectively), or phosphorylation dependent dimerization, for instance.
The initiation of sporulation in B. subtilis is subject to complex regulation (for review see ref [1, 59] ). The activation of Spo0A is controlled by a multi-component phosphorelay that can integrate environmental cues [60] and ensures a gradual increase in the level of phosphorylated Spo0A in the cell [57] . In addition, the transcription of the spo0A gene is controlled by multiple feedback loops. For instance, Spo0A regulates its own transcription by binding to the spo0A promoter [46] , as well as by indirectly stimulating the transcription of sigH, encoding a sigma factor that recognizes the spo0A promoter [48] .
In C. difficile, there are some interesting differences and similarities in the regulatory pathways. Most notably, there seems to be no phosphorelay [2] and the phosphorylation state of Spo0A is supposedly controlled by orphan histidine kinases [35] . The transcription of spo0A in C. difficile is under control of the transition state sigma factor Sigma H [37] , as it is in B. subtilis [61] . Our data indicate that both spo0A and sigH could be targets for direct regulation by Spo0A in C. difficile (Fig. 3A) , raising the possibility of auto-regulation of spo0A. The putative direct regulation of sigH by Spo0A may reflect that the C. difficile genome does not harbor a homolog of the pleiotropic regulator AbrB, which is responsible for the Spo0A-dependent regulation of sigH in B. subtilis [48] . Consistent with a model in which spo0A is positively autoregulated, we noted a sharp increase in the levels of Spo0A as cells approach the stationary growth phase ( Figure 1C) .
Downstream of Spo0A, we found binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of several early sporulation genes, such as spoIIAA, spoIIE, and spoIIGA (Fig. 3B ). All these observations are consistent with direct regulation of these genes by Spo0A in other organisms [5, 45, 49, 62] , and the conservation of the sporulation pathway [2] .
Though Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation in Firmicutes, it regulates numerous other processes in various bacteria. In the non-pathogenic B. subtilis, for instance, the protein also affects competence development, biofilm formation, the production of and resistance to antimicrobial compounds, chromosome dynamics and aspects of phage biology [10, [14] [15] [16] . Importantly, several of these processes are indirectly regulated, through the Spo0A-dependent repression of abrB. Additionally, transcription of abrB responds already to low levels of Spo0A,P [43] . As a result these effects are detectable in late-exponential and early stationary phase, as some Spo0A is present throughout growth in B. subtilis cells.
Though abrB is absent from C. difficile, this does not exclude the possibility of indirect transcriptional regulation through Spo0Adependent effects on other regulators. Alternatively, Spo0A may exert a direct effect. In Clostridium acetobutylicum and C. beijerinckii, Spo0A is a direct regulator of solvent formation, as well as sporulation [22, 23] . It seems therefore conceivable that Spo0A in C. difficile also affects aspects of metabolism. In this respect, it is important to note that also in C. difficile Spo0A is detectable from early exponential growth phase on ( Figure 1B) .
We observed direct binding of C. difficile Spo0A to the promoter region of sigH (Fig. 3A) . This gene encodes the key sigma factor for the transition phase, and regulates processes outside sporulation as well [37] . Moreover, we found significant levels of Spo0A from early stationary phase on ( Fig. 1B and unpublished observations) , indicating the regulatory actions of Spo0A need not be limited to stationary phase in C. difficile. In line with this idea, we found a potential regulatory link between Spo0A and two genes that to our knowledge are not related to the sporulation process, the lipoate ligase lplA and the aliphatic sulfonates transporter ssuA (Fig. 3A) . The presence of a putative Spo0A binding site upstream of these genes, as well as the spacing compared to the start codon, is conserved in the problematic Stoke-Mandeville strain (R20291), a member of PCR ribotype 27. This could indicate that these aspects of regulation by Spo0A are conserved in multiple strains of C. difficile.
It should be noted that our work so far has been limited to an in vitro analysis of Spo0A binding, and therefore does not indicate whether activation or repression of the putative target genes occurs in vivo. To answer this question, detailed transcriptome and/or proteome studies have to be performed. In order to distinguish direct from indirect effects, in vivo binding profiles of Spo0A should be performed. The antibodies generated for this study should prove to be useful for this type of experiments.
Amongst the pathogenic Firmicutes, Spo0A has been reported to affect toxin production in multiple species. In B. anthracis a spo0A mutation results in elevated levels of AbrB, and concomitantly lower levels of the toxin genes pagA, cya and lef that are under AbrB control [17] . Similarly, the production of the emetic toxin cereulide in B. cereus is greatly repressed in a spo0A mutant, in an AbrB-dependent manner [63] . In contrast, Spo0A directly represses the expression of the cry toxin genes in B. thuringiensis and a spo0A mutant is therefore a hyper-producer of the insecticidal crystal protein [18, 21] . In Clostridium perfringens TpeL, a member of the large clostridial toxins just like TcdA and TcdB, is directly dependent on Spo0A [64] and also the production of enterotoxin in this organism seems to be (indirectly) dependent on sporulation [65, 66] .
In C. difficile an insertional spo0A mutant generated using Clostron technology was reported to have ,10-fold reduced levels of toxin A (TcdA), both intracellularly and extracellularly as well as ,1000-fold reduced toxicity towards Vero cells, which are primarily sensitive towards toxin B (TcdB) [35] . Our in vitro binding data indicate a potential binding site for Spo0A upstream of tcdB and possibly tcdC (Fig. 4A) . However, the in vivo relevance of this binding seems limited as in our hands an independently derived but otherwise identical mutant (a kind gift of the Minton lab; [33] ) did not demonstrate a reduced toxicity towards Vero cells. In contrast, we found that in TTY medium toxin levels were slightly elevated in spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type (#2fold in exponential phase cells up to 4-fold in late-stationary phase cells). The small, and not significant, differences in toxin levels in our experiments might be attributed to differences in the susceptibility of cells for lysis rather than the production of toxin, but could also indicate a negative regulatory effect of Spo0A on toxin production. In support of the latter hypothesis, it was recently reported that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile strain R20291 (a PCR ribotypes 027/BI/NAP1 epidemic strain) demonstrates ,10fold higher toxin levels than its isogenic wild type 30 h post inoculation, and is significantly more virulent in a mouse model of disease [34] .
The differences between Underwood et al [35] on the one hand and our study as well as the study of Deakin and coworkers [34] on the other hand may be explained by differences in experimental conditions, such as the medium used. However, we observed no difference in cytotoxicity between supernatant derived from wild type or spo0A mutant cells when they were grown in BHIS, a medium nearly identical to that used previously (data not shown). Alternatively, the differences could indicate integration of the group II intron at more than one location in the chromosome in the strain used in Underwood et al [35] . In the absence of a complementation experiment and/or Southern blot data, this remains to be established.
In summary, our data are consistent with a model in which the regulation of the major clostridial toxins in C. difficile is not positively affected by Spo0A, in contrast to previous findings and other pathogenic Clostridia. Whether Spo0A is truly a negative regulator of toxin production remains to be confirmed using in vitro and in vivo transcription assays.
In the present study we have for the first time demonstrated direct binding of the DNA binding domain of C. difficile Spo0A to putative target DNA. This work has revealed that aspects of Spo0A binding are conserved between Bacillus and C. difficile (0A box, possible auto-regulation and binding to early sporulation promoters), whereas others are not (the absence of abrB as a direct target in C. difficile, binding to DNA upstream of lplA, ssuA). The effects of Spo0A on toxin production may be similar to those observed for B. thuringiensis [18, 21] . Future work will be aimed at determining the effect of Spo0A on the transcription of the putative target genes, and carry out a comprehensive analysis of Spo0A binding in vivo. The identification of genes affected by Spo0A in C. difficile may shed light on the role of the protein in virulence and pathogenesis of this organism.
Figure S1 Specificity controls for binding by Spo0A-DBD-his6. Arrows indicate the position of shifted species (DNA:protein complexes). Titrations with PCR fragments of PabrB (containing a high affinity binding site) and PtcdA (lacking such a site) correspond to approximately 0.1 nM/mL -0.03 nM/ mL. A. Comparison of binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6, Spo0A-his6 and CD2195-his6 binding to the upstream region of spoIIAA. B. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIAA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA). C. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIE is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. D. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIGA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. E. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdB is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. F. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdC is not or moderately affected by the addition of PabrB and/or PtcdA. (TIF) Text S1 Oligonucleotides used in this study and PCR cycling conditions for the EMSA probes. (PDF) | What is sporulation? | 914 | adaptive strategy that enables bacteria to survive harsh environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time | 1,992 |
1,667 | C. difficile 630Δerm Spo0A Regulates Sporulation, but Does Not Contribute to Toxin Production, by Direct High-Affinity Binding to Target DNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485338/
SHA: f0fb3bbd96dad4c907c7fd456cd5783ed8fa7bd6
Authors: Rosenbusch, Katharina E.; Bakker, Dennis; Kuijper, Ed J.; Smits, Wiep Klaas
Date: 2012-10-31
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048608
License: cc-by
Abstract: Clostridium difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that can form highly resistant endospores. The bacterium is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI), for which the symptoms can range from a mild diarrhea to potentially fatal pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon. Endospore formation in Firmicutes, including C. difficile, is governed by the key regulator for sporulation, Spo0A. In Bacillus subtilis, this transcription factor is also directly or indirectly involved in various other cellular processes. Here, we report that C. difficile Spo0A shows a high degree of similarity to the well characterized B. subtilis protein and recognizes a similar binding sequence. We find that the laboratory strain C. difficile 630Δerm contains an 18bp-duplication near the DNA-binding domain compared to its ancestral strain 630. In vitro binding assays using purified C-terminal DNA binding domain of the C. difficile Spo0A protein demonstrate direct binding to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, early sporulation genes and several other putative targets. In vitro binding assays suggest that the gene encoding the major clostridial toxin TcdB may be a direct target of Spo0A, but supernatant derived from a spo0A negative strain was no less toxic towards Vero cells than that obtained from a wild type strain, in contrast to previous reports. These results identify for the first time direct (putative) targets of the Spo0A protein in C. difficile and make a positive effect of Spo0A on production of the large clostridial toxins unlikely.
Text: Sporulation is an adaptive strategy that enables bacteria to survive harsh environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time, and is an integral part of the transmission of sporulating pathogens and their tolerance and resistance towards antimicrobial compounds.
Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation [1, 2] . Most of our knowledge about the protein is based on work in Bacilli. Spo0A is a response regulator that demonstrates phosphorylation dependent binding to DNA [3] [4] [5] . Phosphorylation occurs through the concerted action of several proteins that together form a so called phosphorelay [6] . The signaling cascade allows for the integration of environmental signals into the regulation of Spo0A dependent processes, including sporulation. The two functional domains, the N-terminal phosphorylation and dimerization domain (receiver domain), and the C-terminal DNA binding (effector) domain are separated by a hinge region that is relatively poorly conserved [7] . Phosphorylation is believed to result in a structural rearrangement that facilitates dimerization [8, 9] , resulting in the disruption of transcription-inhibitory contacts between the receiver and effector domains. The isolated DNA binding domain can bind legitimate targets of the Spo0A protein due to the absence of the transcription inhibitory contacts, thereby bypassing the need for phosphorylation [10] . Extensive characterization of Spo0A targets has revealed a motif that represents a high affinity Spo0A binding site, the 0A box [10, 11] . The crystal structure of the DNA binding domain confirms specific and non-specific contacts between the protein and the consensus sequence [12, 13] . It is noteworthy that Spo0A regulates many other processes than sporulation, such as competence for genetic transformation, DNA replication, and biofilm formation in B. subtilis [14] [15] [16] , virulence factors and stress responses in for instance B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] , and solvent production in Clostridium acetobutylicum [22, 23] .
C. difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI) (for recent reviews see [24, 25] ). Though many people are asymptomatically colonized by C. difficile, the bacterium can cause serious health problems, such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, under the influence of risk factors such as age and antibiotic use. As a result, CDI was long regarded a nosocomial infection. Recently, however, an increase in the cases of community acquired CDI can be observed [26] . Outbreaks of CDI have been linked to so called hypervirulent strains, such as PCR ribotypes 027 (BI/ NAP1) and 078 [27, 28] . Its main virulence factors are the major clostridial toxins A and B [29, 30] . In addition, certain strains of C. difficile, including ribotypes 027 and 078, additionally encode a binary toxin [31, 32] . C. difficile is transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is believed that spores are crucial to successfully infect new hosts, as they are able to withstand the harsh environment of the stomach, and survive antibiotic treatments that alter the endogenous flora, after which C. difficile can overgrow [24, 25] .
There is limited knowledge about the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile. It has been reported that spo0A, as expected, is required for the formation of spores [33] and the gene is required for persistence and transmission in mice [34] . Though the pathways downstream of Spo0A seem to a large extent conserved between B. subtilis and Clostridia, this is less so for the pathways leading to activation of Spo0A [2] . It has been suggested that the orphan histidine kinase CD2492 is involved in the activation of Spo0A [35] . Similarly, it was reported that multiple orphan histidine kinases can phosphorylate Spo0A in C. acetobutylicum [36] . Recently, it was reported that spo0A can be transcribed from a SigH-dependent promoter [37] . It is unknown which genes are regulated by direct binding of Spo0A to their upstream regions.
Here, we establish an in vitro binding assay for C. difficile Spo0A and demonstrate for the first time direct binding of this transcription factor to DNA upstream of several putative target genes.
Escherichia coli strains were routinely grown in Luria-Bertani broth or plates, supplemented with appropriate antibiotics. Chloramphenicol was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL for agar plates and 10 mg/mL for liquid cultures. Ampicillin was used at a final concentration of 100 mg/mL. Kanamycin was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL. Cloning was carried out using E. coli DH5a, overexpression was performed in E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). C. difficile strains were grown in a glucose-free trypton-yeast based medium (TTY; 3% w/v bactotrypton (BD), 2% yeast extract (Fluka), 0.1% w/v thioglycollate (Sigma) pH 7.4), supplemented with 20 mg/mL of lincomycin when appropriate, or on CLO or TSS plates (Biomerieux).
All plasmids are listed in Table 1 . Primers (obtained from Sigma Aldrich) are listed in Text S1 and specific cycling conditions are available on request. Unless noted otherwise, PCR reactions were carried out using Pfu polymerase (Fermentas) according to the instructions of the manufacturer.
Plasmid pWKS1251, for the overproduction of Spo0A-DBD carrying a C-terminal 66His-tag, was constructed as follows. A sequence corresponding to the DNA binding domain of Spo0A was amplified using primers oWKS-1123a and oWKS-1124 using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile strain 630Derm as a template. The resulting fragment was cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO (Invitrogen), yielding pWKS1247. This plasmid was digested with NdeI and XhoI, separated on a 1% agarose/0.56 TAE (20 mM Tris Acetate, 0.5 mM EDTA) gel, the fragment corresponding to the DNA binding domain was recovered by gel-isolation (using a GeneJET Gel Extraction kit, Fermentas) and cloned into similarly digested pMF14 [10] that had been gel-isolated in the same manner. The construct was verified by PCR, restriction analyses and DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-135 and oWKS-136 (see below).
Plasmid pWKS1245, for the production of full length Spo0A carrying a C-terminal 6xHis-tag, was constructed in a similar manner using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm as a template, but using the PCR product of primers oWKS-1122 and oWKS-1123a.
Plasmids used as PCR templates for generating EMSA probes were constructed by cloning the PCR products into pCR2.1-TOPO. The inserts, and in the case of the mutated PabrB promoters the presence of the desired point mutations in the consensus 0A box, were verified by DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-24 and oWKS-25 (see below).
Sequence grade plasmids were isolated using a Nucleospin Plasmid QuickPure kit (Macherey Nagel) according to the manufacturer's instructions, except that two lysis reactions were combined onto a single filter and eluted with 65uC prewarmed AE buffer. All constructs were sequenced using BigDye Terminator chemistry (Invitrogen) on an ABI3130 sequencer (Perkin Elmer), according to the instructions of the manufacturers. In short, ,200 ng of plasmid was mixed with 3.2 pmol of primer, 1 mL Terminator Ready Reaction Mix (Invitrogen) in a final volume of 20 mL. After thermocycling, DNA was precipitated and washed with 65% isopropanol, and dissolved in 12 mL HiDi formamid (Invitrogen) at 96uC for 2 mins and stored in the dark at 4uC until the sequencing run. Sequence analyses were performed in CloneManager Professional Suite 7 (SciEd) and Geneious version 5.6.2 (Biomatters Ltd).
Plasmids pWKS1245 and pWKS1251 were transformed into E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). Transformants were used to inoculate 25 mL of LB with appropriate antibiotics. After overnight incubation, the cells were 1:100 diluted in 500 mL fresh medium containing appropriate antibiotics. Protein production was induced with 1 mM IPTG at an OD600 of 0.7 and growth was continued for another three hours before harvesting. Cells were washed with ice cold PBS and stored at 280uC for later use. Purification of the proteins was essentially done as described [10] . In short, cells were disrupted in 4 mL lysis buffer (2 mM PMSF, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). Cleared cell lysates we incubated with 2 mL pre-equilibrated 50% TALON slurry (Clontech) in a final volume of 15 mL lysis buffer for 1 hr. The resin was allowed to settle on a Poly-Prep column (BioRad) and washed with 2 mL wash buffer (20 mM imidazole, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). The protein was stepwise eluted in 1 mL fractions after applying 2 mL elution buffer to the column (identical to wash buffer but with 50, 100, 250 or 500 mM imidazole). The whole procedure was carried out at 4uC. Fractions were assayed for purity and yield and suitable fractions were dialysed against 26 1L dialysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM DTT) using Slide-A-Lyzer cassettes with a molecular weight cut-off of 3.5 kDa (Pierce).
Proteins were stored at 280uC in storage buffer (identical to dialysis buffer but containing 20% glycerol). Protein concentrations were determined using Bradford reagent (BioRad), according to the manufacturer's instructions.
DNA fragments for use in EMSA experiment were generated by PCR using GoTaq polymerase (Promega) and chromosomal DNA from B. subtilis JH642 (Bacillus Genetic Stock Center 1A96; http://www.bgsc.org), plasmids listed in Table 1 , or chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm [38] as a template. Primers and specific cycling conditions for generation of the EMSA probes are listed in Text S1. DNA fragments of the expected size were isolated from a 16TAE/8% native polyacrylamide gel using diffusion buffer (0.5 M ammonium acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM EDTA pH 8, 0.1% SDS) and a QIAExII kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Recovered DNA was end-labeled with 32P-c-ATP using FR buffer and T4 kinase (Invitrogen) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Specific activity was determined on a LS6000 scintillation counter (Beckman).
EMSA conditions were based on previous studies [10] . In short, binding reactions were carried out in binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 5% glycerol) in the presence of 200 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (NEB) and 200 cpm/mL radiolabeled DNA fragment. Reactions were incubated for 20 minutes at 30uC prior to loading on a 16TAE/8% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel that was prerun for 20 minutes at 50 V in 16 TAE buffer. Electrophoresis was carried out for 120 min at 85 V. After vacuum drying the gels onto filter paper, they were imaged after overnight exposure on Phosphorimager screens on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare).
The toxic effects of C. difficile culture supernatants on Vero cells (a kind gift of Eric Snijder [39] ) were determined as follows. Supernatant from a bacterial culture was harvested by centrifuging cells for 3 minutes at 140006g and filtered on a 0.45 mM cellulose acetate filter using a syringe. Supernatants were 2-fold serially diluted in cell culture medium (Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (Lonza) supplemented with 100 mg/mL penicillin, 100 U/mL streptomycin, 10% fetal calf serum), before applying them to a monolayer of Vero cells, and incubation was continued for another hour. As a positive control, 50 mL 1:10 diluted purified toxin (Techlab) was added to the cells. To determine if observed cytotoxic effects were specific for the large clostridial toxins, commercially available anti-toxin against TcdA and TcdB (Techlab) was added to 10-fold diluted bacterial supernatant for 60 min prior to incubation on the Vero cells. Toxin end-point titres were defined as the lowest dilution at which no cytopathological effects (cell rounding) were observed.
Statistical significance was evaluated with an independent sample t-test.
Immunization of mice with full length C. difficile Spo0A-6xHis was kindly performed at the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute (Hinxton, UK). Cells from 1 mL of C. difficile culture were collected by centrifugation for 1 min at 14000 rpm in a table top centrifuge and resuspended in 200 mL resuspension buffer (10 mM Tris HCl pH 8, 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mg/mL lysozyme, 1 mM Pefabloc SC (Roche)). After incubation for 30 mins at 37uC, 50 mL of 56 SDS sample buffer (0.1 M DTT, 2% SDS, 50 mM Tris HCl pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 0.0025% BPB) was added, and samples were heated to 96uC for 5 mins. Total cell lysates (amounts corrected for OD 600 ) were separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel prior to semi-dry blotting for 1 h at 10 V to a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. Membranes were blocked in PBST buffer (phosphate buffered saline with 0.1% v/v Tween-20) containing 5% membrane blocking reagent (Amersham Biosciences). To visualize Spo0A protein cleared polyclonal serum from a single mouse at a 1:3000 dilution was used, followed by either a goat-anti-mouse HRP-conjugated secondary antibody followed by ECL+ detection (Amersham Bioscience), or a goatanti-mouse-biotin-conjugated secondary antibody (Dako) followed by a tertiary mouse-anti-biotin Cy3-conjugated antibody (Jackson). Detection was done using on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare). Background corrected peak volumes were quantified using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences).
Alignments of B. subtilis and C. difficile spo0A were made using ClustalW2 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) on the basis of the published genome sequences, Genbank accession numbers AL009126 and AM180355, respectively, and the 630Derm spo0A sequence as determined in this study. The sequence for spo0A of C. difficile strain 630Derm was deposited in Genbank (accession no JX050222). Consensus Spo0A boxes were identified using a Single string Search command in Genome2D [40] , allowing 0 mismatches. The box positions were linked to upand downstream genes using the ''Add nearest gene to List of DNA Motifs'' feature and Microsoft Excel. The results were manually inspected for those boxes within 500 bp upstream of a gene on the same strand. Figures for publication were prepared using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc) and Corel Graphics Suite X5 (Corel Corporation).
In order to characterize C. difficile Spo0A, the full length protein and its DNA binding domain (DBD) were expressed as a Cterminally 66His-tagged protein in the heterologous host Escherichia coli (Fig. 1A) and purified to near homogeneity using metal affinity chromatography ( Fig. 1A ; lanes P). Full length protein was used to raise antibodies to detect Spo0A in total lysates of C. difficile strains, and the purified DNA binding domain was used in subsequent in vitro binding assays (see below).
We determined the expression of C. difficile Spo0A throughout growth. We found that the protein is present in lysates from exponential to stationary growth phase cells. We performed immunoblotting using polyclonal antibodies against C. difficile Spo0A on total lysates of wild type and spo0A mutant cells grown in a trypton-yeast based medium (TTY). We found a clear signal of the size expected for full length Spo0A (,31 kDa) as early as 3 hours post inoculation (exponential growth phase), through transition phase (8 h) as well as 24 and 48 hours post inoculation (stationary growth phase) ( Figure 1B; 630Derm) . The signals were specific for C. difficile Spo0A as they were absent from lysates from the C. difficile spo0A mutant (Fig. 1B , CT::spo0A). We obtained similar results in other media, such as the commonly used supplemented brain heart infusion broth (BHIS; data not shown).
To determine relative levels of Spo0A throughout growth, we performed an immunoblot experiment using fluorescent antibodies, which gives more quantitative information compared to the use of horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibodies in our hands. We found that the levels of Spo0A increases approximately 20-fold from 6 hours post inoculation and remains at similar levels from 8 to 48 hours post inoculation ( Figure 1C ).
Though it should be noted that the Western blots do not provide information on the phosphorylation state of the protein, we conclude that the protein in active or inactive form is present throughout growth and is more abundant in stationary growth phase.
Spo0A of C. difficile Strain 630Derm Contains a 6aminoacid Duplication BLAST homology searches readily identify a homolog of the well-characterized B. subtilis Spo0A protein in C. difficile 630 (CD1214) and previous work demonstrated that a spo0A mutant (an insertional inactivation of cd1214) -as expected -no longer forms spores [41] . In silico analyses suggest a similar secondary structure for both proteins ( Fig. 2A) , with a conserved dimerization and DNA binding domain, separated by a poorly conserved hinge region [7, 12] .
We compared the sequence of CD1214 obtained from our lab strain 630Derm [38] to that of the published C. difficile 630 genome [42] . Strain 630Derm is a spontaneous erythromycin sensitive strain, which is commonly used in mutagenesis studies and was obtained by serial passaging of strain 630 [33, 38] . The 630Derm spo0A sequence (Genbank accession no JX050222) was derived from the expression plasmids constructed for this study, and confirmed in a whole genome sequence of strain 630Derm generated in our lab (data not shown). We found that 630Derm spo0A contains an 18 base pair direct repeat, resulting in a 6 amino acid (NVGNIE) duplication compared to the published reference sequence. The duplication maps to a region of the protein with relatively low sequence conservation (hinge), flanking the highly conserved DNA binding domain ( Fig. 2A and B) . We verified the absence of this duplication in strain 630 by PCR (Fig. 2C ) as well as sequencing from the chromosomal DNA of C. difficile 630 (data not shown), to rule out an error in the original genome sequence and to demonstrate that the difference in size of the PCR product was specific to the 18 bp insertion. In addition, we checked several other strains of PCR ribotypes 12 (to which 630 and 630Derm belong) by PCR, but the duplication was found to be unique to 630Derm among the isolates tested (data not shown).
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Shows Similar Specificity as B. subtilis Spo0A-DBD Next, we examined the conservation of the DNA binding domain of Spo0A (Spo0A-DBD) between B. subtilis and C. difficile. In B. subtilis amino acid residues contacting the backbone of the DNA and interacting with specific residues of the Spo0A binding sequence have been defined [13] . We found that all these residues were conserved in the C. difficile protein sequence (Fig. 2B) , indicating that the protein likely recognizes a similar motif.
DNA binding by full length Spo0A in B. subtilis requires phosphorylation dependent dimerization [8, 9] . However, it was shown that the isolated DBD is capable of binding to legitimate targets of the full length protein [10] . Analogously, we purified the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD for use in in vitro binding assays. As no direct targets for the C. difficile protein have been reported so far, we used the upstream region of the abrB gene (PabrB) of B. subtilis. PabrB is commonly used as a high-affinity control in binding assays with the B. subtilis Spo0A or Spo0A-DBD protein [43, 44] . It is noteworthy that we failed to identify a homolog of abrB in C. difficile using BLAST, indicating that potential indirect regulation by Spo0A cannot occur through abrB in C. difficile as it does in B. subtilis. We found that C. difficile Spo0A-DBD bound with high affinity to PabrB (Fig. 2D and E) . We performed electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) using radiolabeled PabrB and increasing amounts of purified C. difficile Spo0A-DBD that was purified using a C-terminal 66His-tag. The addition of protein leads to a dose-dependent retardation of the DNA fragment with an apparent K D of ,50 nM. In the same range of protein concentrations, no binding was observed for a negative control (a DNA fragment of B. subtilis citG [45] ) (Fig. 2E) , suggesting that binding was specific for the abrB promoter region.
B. subtilis Spo0A recognizes a distinct sequence (0A box), that is characterized by a 7 bp core motif (TGTCGAA) [10, 11] . Structural studies have revealed that the protein makes specific contacts with the G at position 2 (G2), and the C at position 4 (C4) and 5 (G5) of this motif [13] . We introduced G2A, C4A, G5A, G2A/C4A and C4A/G5A mutations in the perfect consensus core 0A-box present in PabrB. We found that the affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for these mutated PabrB fragments was highly reduced (Fig. 2E) . We performed EMSAs using radiolabeled PabrB containing the mutated core sequence. For the single point mutations in the DNA, the affinity decreased ,10-fold. There did not seem to be an additive effect of a second point mutation for the two combinations tested. None of the mutations abolished binding of C. difficile Spo0A completely, most likely as the result of binding of Spo0A to other (non-consensus) 0A boxes in the abrB promoter [44] .
Taken together, we conclude that the guanine and cytosine residues in the core TGTCGAA motif of PabrB are important for specific binding of this fragment by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD.
Value for Binding by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Above, we have established that the Spo0A-DBD of C. difficile is highly homologous to that of the B. subtilis Spo0A protein, and that the proteins recognize a similar consensus sequence (Fig. 2 ). Based on this information, we identified the several genes as putative direct targets of C. difficile Spo0A.
We queried the C. difficile 630 genome sequence for perfect matches to the core 0A box using Genome2D [40] . Such an analysis revealed the presence of 102 matching motifs, of which 45 were located within 500 bp of the initiating ATG of an open reading frame on the same strand (see Table S1 ). Our attention was drawn to spo0A and sigH, as these two genes were previously found to be regulated by Spo0A in B. subtilis and/or play important roles in sporulation [3, [46] [47] [48] . We found that C. difficile Spo0A bound to DNA sequences upstream of spo0A and sigH.
We performed EMSAs with DNA encompassing 220-281 bp upstream of the initiating ATG codon of the spo0A, sigH and spoVG open reading frames. We found that the addition of Spo0A-DBD to the reactions caused retardation of the spo0A and sigH DNA fragments (Fig. 3A) , but not of a spoVG fragment which did not contain a consensus 0A box (Fig. 3B) . It should be noted that the affinity of Spo0A-DBD for the region upstream of spo0A was the highest we have observed so far for any C. difficile DNA. Moreover, the presence of multiple shifted species could indicate the presence of more than one strong binding site. These results establish that spo0A and sigH are likely legitimate targets of Spo0A in C. difficile, and confirm that spoVG is not, in line with results obtained in B. subtilis [10] .
We were interested to see if Spo0A in C. difficile could potentially regulate genes that have no documented function in sporulation. Our in silico analysis identified several genes with no obvious link to sporulation that had a consensus 0A box within 100 bp upstream of their start codon. This positioning is similar to that observed for spo0A (275) and sigH (278). We confirmed in vitro binding of the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD to the promoter regions of lplA and ssuA.
We carried out EMSA experiments using probes that included the perfect consensus site and purified Spo0A-DBD protein. We observed binding of the protein to fragments upstream of the lplA gene (CD1654; box at 267) and the ssuA gene (CD1484; box at 282) (Fig. 3A) . The lplA gene encodes a predicted lipoate-protein ligase, and ssuA is annotated as an aliphatic sulfonates ABC transporter; to our knowledge, neither of these have been directly implicated in sporulation or have found to be targets for Spo0A in other organisms.
Together our results establish the potential for binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, two genes that are important for sporulation, and indicate that Spo0A may have functions that go beyond the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile.
It has been established that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile does not produce any spores, consistent with a crucial role in the sporulation pathway [33] . However, the in silico identification of upstream regions with a consensus Spo0A binding site did not point to any of the early sporulation genes (downstream of spo0A itself) as direct targets of Spo0A. This is likely the result of variations in the 0A-box in these promoters that were disregarded in the box search. In support of this, many well-characterized legitimate direct targets of B. subtilis Spo0A (such as spoIIAA and spoIIE) do not contain a 100% match to the core motif, but rather one or more near-consensus boxes [5, 49] . We found that Spo0A- We performed EMSA experiments using increasing amounts of purified Spo0A-DBD from C. difficile 630Derm and the DNA fragments indicated above (Fig. 3B ). For spoIIAA (encoding an antianti sigma-factor) and spoIIE (encoding a serine phosphatase), we observed a low intensity shifted species at concentrations as low as 150 nM. For spoIIGA (encoding a sporulation specific protease) we observed the shifted species only at higher concentrations of protein (.200 nM). The negative control (spoVG) did not demonstrate binding of Spo0A-DBD at these concentrations. Moreover, the shift we observed was reversible using unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not using unlabeled DNA that lacked such a site ( Figure S1B-D) . Therefore, we consider the binding to spoIIAA, spoIIE and spoIIGA genes to be specific, despite the fact that increasing the amount of protein did not seem to cause a significant increase in the amount of DNA in the complex.
Together, these results suggest that Spo0A in C. difficile might regulate the transcription of at least a subset of early sporulation genes by direct binding to their promoter regions.
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Binds to DNA Upstream of tcdB It has previously been reported that the deletion of Spo0A in C. difficile results in a significantly lower toxin production and a ,1000-fold reduction in the toxicity of culture supernatant derived from spo0A negative cells towards Vero cells [35] . Considering the absence of a homolog of the abrB repressor, direct binding of Spo0A and concomitant activation of toxin gene transcription is a likely mechanism through which this could occur. We found evidence for direct binding of Spo0A-DBD to the region upstream of tcdB, encoding one of the major clostridial toxin genes, and possibly tcdC, but this did not seem to result in lower toxin levels in our hands.
We performed EMSAs using DNA upstream of tcdR (encoding a sigma factor responsible for the activation of toxin gene transcription), tcdB (encoding toxin B), tcdA (encoding toxin A). In order to test regions upstream of all open reading frames in the PaLoc, we also tested binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of tcdE (encoding a holin-like protein [50, 51] ) and tcdC (encoding a putative negative regulator of toxin production [52] [53] [54] ), even though this regulator does not have a significant effect on toxin levels under the conditions we used [55, 56] . Of the regions tested, we only observed a clear shifted species, indicative of Spo0A binding, for tcdB ( Figure 4A ); the shifted species in our EMSA assay was reversed by the addition of unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not by DNA lacking such a site ( Figure S1E ). For tcdC, some smearing was observed at all concentrations of proteins tested ( Figure 4A ), and there did not seem to be a clear effect of the addition of unlabeled DNA fragments ( Figure S1F ). The probes for tcdA, tcdE and tcdR were indistinguishable from those obtained with our negative control, spoVG.
We wanted to determine if toxin levels in culture supernatants were directly or indirectly affected by Spo0A, as was previously suggested. We found no lower toxicity towards Vero cells of culture supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type.
We grew three independent biological replicates of a wild type (630Derm) or Clostron-generated spo0A mutant (CT::spo0A -a kind gift of the Minton lab) in glucose-free TTY medium. We harvested culture supernatant at late-exponential phase (approximately 7 hours post inoculation), the transition phase between exponential and stationary growth phase (approximately 9 hours post inoculation), as well as two time points in stationary phase (24 and 48 hours post inoculation) and determined the toxin endpoint titres (see Materials and Methods). In contrast to previous findings, we observed a small (#4-fold) increase in the toxicity of supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type, but in all cases this difference was not statistically significant (p.0.05, independent sample t-test). In other medium (BHIS), we observed no differences at all (data not shown).
We conclude that Spo0A does not positively affect toxin production in C. difficile 630Derm and the in vivo relevance of the binding to regions upstream of tcdB and/or tcdC is therefore limited under our experimental conditions.
The Spo0A-box of C. difficile In B. subtilis, the binding site of Spo0A on target DNA has been well-characterized, through a combination of in vitro binding assays, determination of in vivo binding profiles and mutagenesis of regulated promoter sequences. This work has led to the identification of a conserved core motif, TGTCGAA, or Spo0A box [5, 10, 11, 45] . Depending on the analysis, this motif is flanked by one or more adenine or thymine residues [10, 11] . Interestingly, many target genes do not harbor a perfect match to this consensus sequence, but rather contain one or more degenerate motifs. The differences in these motifs may reflect different promoter architectures (e.g. AT content), modes of action (e.g. activation or repression) or levels of regulation. Spo0A genes in B. subtilis can be divided in different classes that respond to different levels of phosphorylated Spo0A [43, 57] .
For C. difficile, we conclude that the Spo0A protein likely recognizes a motif that is similar to the B. subtilis Spo0A box on the basis of four lines of evidence; 1. All DNA binding/contacting residues are conserved (Fig. 2B) , 2. C. difficile Spo0A can bind with high affinity to a target of B. subtilis Spo0A (Fig. 2D) , 3. Mutagenesis of key residues in the B. subtilis Spo0A box reduces affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for DNA (Fig. 2E ) and 4. A B. subtilis Spo0A box has predictive value for DNA binding by C. difficile Spo0A (Fig. 3A) . It is conceivable that our model system, using the purified DNA binding domain, does not accurately reflect binding to all target sites, if target site selectivity is determined in part by other parts by of the full length protein. It is likely that differences do exist between the preferred binding sites for both proteins that will be evident when a comprehensive analysis is performed of in vivo DNA binding of C. difficile Spo0A; based on the limited data set of this study, a MEME analysis [58] already suggests possible differences in the extended Spo0A motif (W.K. Smits, unpublished observations). These differences may relate to the much higher AT content of C. difficile compared to B. subtilis (71 vs. 56.5%, respectively), or phosphorylation dependent dimerization, for instance.
The initiation of sporulation in B. subtilis is subject to complex regulation (for review see ref [1, 59] ). The activation of Spo0A is controlled by a multi-component phosphorelay that can integrate environmental cues [60] and ensures a gradual increase in the level of phosphorylated Spo0A in the cell [57] . In addition, the transcription of the spo0A gene is controlled by multiple feedback loops. For instance, Spo0A regulates its own transcription by binding to the spo0A promoter [46] , as well as by indirectly stimulating the transcription of sigH, encoding a sigma factor that recognizes the spo0A promoter [48] .
In C. difficile, there are some interesting differences and similarities in the regulatory pathways. Most notably, there seems to be no phosphorelay [2] and the phosphorylation state of Spo0A is supposedly controlled by orphan histidine kinases [35] . The transcription of spo0A in C. difficile is under control of the transition state sigma factor Sigma H [37] , as it is in B. subtilis [61] . Our data indicate that both spo0A and sigH could be targets for direct regulation by Spo0A in C. difficile (Fig. 3A) , raising the possibility of auto-regulation of spo0A. The putative direct regulation of sigH by Spo0A may reflect that the C. difficile genome does not harbor a homolog of the pleiotropic regulator AbrB, which is responsible for the Spo0A-dependent regulation of sigH in B. subtilis [48] . Consistent with a model in which spo0A is positively autoregulated, we noted a sharp increase in the levels of Spo0A as cells approach the stationary growth phase ( Figure 1C) .
Downstream of Spo0A, we found binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of several early sporulation genes, such as spoIIAA, spoIIE, and spoIIGA (Fig. 3B ). All these observations are consistent with direct regulation of these genes by Spo0A in other organisms [5, 45, 49, 62] , and the conservation of the sporulation pathway [2] .
Though Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation in Firmicutes, it regulates numerous other processes in various bacteria. In the non-pathogenic B. subtilis, for instance, the protein also affects competence development, biofilm formation, the production of and resistance to antimicrobial compounds, chromosome dynamics and aspects of phage biology [10, [14] [15] [16] . Importantly, several of these processes are indirectly regulated, through the Spo0A-dependent repression of abrB. Additionally, transcription of abrB responds already to low levels of Spo0A,P [43] . As a result these effects are detectable in late-exponential and early stationary phase, as some Spo0A is present throughout growth in B. subtilis cells.
Though abrB is absent from C. difficile, this does not exclude the possibility of indirect transcriptional regulation through Spo0Adependent effects on other regulators. Alternatively, Spo0A may exert a direct effect. In Clostridium acetobutylicum and C. beijerinckii, Spo0A is a direct regulator of solvent formation, as well as sporulation [22, 23] . It seems therefore conceivable that Spo0A in C. difficile also affects aspects of metabolism. In this respect, it is important to note that also in C. difficile Spo0A is detectable from early exponential growth phase on ( Figure 1B) .
We observed direct binding of C. difficile Spo0A to the promoter region of sigH (Fig. 3A) . This gene encodes the key sigma factor for the transition phase, and regulates processes outside sporulation as well [37] . Moreover, we found significant levels of Spo0A from early stationary phase on ( Fig. 1B and unpublished observations) , indicating the regulatory actions of Spo0A need not be limited to stationary phase in C. difficile. In line with this idea, we found a potential regulatory link between Spo0A and two genes that to our knowledge are not related to the sporulation process, the lipoate ligase lplA and the aliphatic sulfonates transporter ssuA (Fig. 3A) . The presence of a putative Spo0A binding site upstream of these genes, as well as the spacing compared to the start codon, is conserved in the problematic Stoke-Mandeville strain (R20291), a member of PCR ribotype 27. This could indicate that these aspects of regulation by Spo0A are conserved in multiple strains of C. difficile.
It should be noted that our work so far has been limited to an in vitro analysis of Spo0A binding, and therefore does not indicate whether activation or repression of the putative target genes occurs in vivo. To answer this question, detailed transcriptome and/or proteome studies have to be performed. In order to distinguish direct from indirect effects, in vivo binding profiles of Spo0A should be performed. The antibodies generated for this study should prove to be useful for this type of experiments.
Amongst the pathogenic Firmicutes, Spo0A has been reported to affect toxin production in multiple species. In B. anthracis a spo0A mutation results in elevated levels of AbrB, and concomitantly lower levels of the toxin genes pagA, cya and lef that are under AbrB control [17] . Similarly, the production of the emetic toxin cereulide in B. cereus is greatly repressed in a spo0A mutant, in an AbrB-dependent manner [63] . In contrast, Spo0A directly represses the expression of the cry toxin genes in B. thuringiensis and a spo0A mutant is therefore a hyper-producer of the insecticidal crystal protein [18, 21] . In Clostridium perfringens TpeL, a member of the large clostridial toxins just like TcdA and TcdB, is directly dependent on Spo0A [64] and also the production of enterotoxin in this organism seems to be (indirectly) dependent on sporulation [65, 66] .
In C. difficile an insertional spo0A mutant generated using Clostron technology was reported to have ,10-fold reduced levels of toxin A (TcdA), both intracellularly and extracellularly as well as ,1000-fold reduced toxicity towards Vero cells, which are primarily sensitive towards toxin B (TcdB) [35] . Our in vitro binding data indicate a potential binding site for Spo0A upstream of tcdB and possibly tcdC (Fig. 4A) . However, the in vivo relevance of this binding seems limited as in our hands an independently derived but otherwise identical mutant (a kind gift of the Minton lab; [33] ) did not demonstrate a reduced toxicity towards Vero cells. In contrast, we found that in TTY medium toxin levels were slightly elevated in spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type (#2fold in exponential phase cells up to 4-fold in late-stationary phase cells). The small, and not significant, differences in toxin levels in our experiments might be attributed to differences in the susceptibility of cells for lysis rather than the production of toxin, but could also indicate a negative regulatory effect of Spo0A on toxin production. In support of the latter hypothesis, it was recently reported that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile strain R20291 (a PCR ribotypes 027/BI/NAP1 epidemic strain) demonstrates ,10fold higher toxin levels than its isogenic wild type 30 h post inoculation, and is significantly more virulent in a mouse model of disease [34] .
The differences between Underwood et al [35] on the one hand and our study as well as the study of Deakin and coworkers [34] on the other hand may be explained by differences in experimental conditions, such as the medium used. However, we observed no difference in cytotoxicity between supernatant derived from wild type or spo0A mutant cells when they were grown in BHIS, a medium nearly identical to that used previously (data not shown). Alternatively, the differences could indicate integration of the group II intron at more than one location in the chromosome in the strain used in Underwood et al [35] . In the absence of a complementation experiment and/or Southern blot data, this remains to be established.
In summary, our data are consistent with a model in which the regulation of the major clostridial toxins in C. difficile is not positively affected by Spo0A, in contrast to previous findings and other pathogenic Clostridia. Whether Spo0A is truly a negative regulator of toxin production remains to be confirmed using in vitro and in vivo transcription assays.
In the present study we have for the first time demonstrated direct binding of the DNA binding domain of C. difficile Spo0A to putative target DNA. This work has revealed that aspects of Spo0A binding are conserved between Bacillus and C. difficile (0A box, possible auto-regulation and binding to early sporulation promoters), whereas others are not (the absence of abrB as a direct target in C. difficile, binding to DNA upstream of lplA, ssuA). The effects of Spo0A on toxin production may be similar to those observed for B. thuringiensis [18, 21] . Future work will be aimed at determining the effect of Spo0A on the transcription of the putative target genes, and carry out a comprehensive analysis of Spo0A binding in vivo. The identification of genes affected by Spo0A in C. difficile may shed light on the role of the protein in virulence and pathogenesis of this organism.
Figure S1 Specificity controls for binding by Spo0A-DBD-his6. Arrows indicate the position of shifted species (DNA:protein complexes). Titrations with PCR fragments of PabrB (containing a high affinity binding site) and PtcdA (lacking such a site) correspond to approximately 0.1 nM/mL -0.03 nM/ mL. A. Comparison of binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6, Spo0A-his6 and CD2195-his6 binding to the upstream region of spoIIAA. B. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIAA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA). C. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIE is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. D. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIGA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. E. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdB is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. F. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdC is not or moderately affected by the addition of PabrB and/or PtcdA. (TIF) Text S1 Oligonucleotides used in this study and PCR cycling conditions for the EMSA probes. (PDF) | What is the key regulator to sporulation? | 915 | Spo0A | 2,243 |
1,667 | C. difficile 630Δerm Spo0A Regulates Sporulation, but Does Not Contribute to Toxin Production, by Direct High-Affinity Binding to Target DNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485338/
SHA: f0fb3bbd96dad4c907c7fd456cd5783ed8fa7bd6
Authors: Rosenbusch, Katharina E.; Bakker, Dennis; Kuijper, Ed J.; Smits, Wiep Klaas
Date: 2012-10-31
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048608
License: cc-by
Abstract: Clostridium difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that can form highly resistant endospores. The bacterium is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI), for which the symptoms can range from a mild diarrhea to potentially fatal pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon. Endospore formation in Firmicutes, including C. difficile, is governed by the key regulator for sporulation, Spo0A. In Bacillus subtilis, this transcription factor is also directly or indirectly involved in various other cellular processes. Here, we report that C. difficile Spo0A shows a high degree of similarity to the well characterized B. subtilis protein and recognizes a similar binding sequence. We find that the laboratory strain C. difficile 630Δerm contains an 18bp-duplication near the DNA-binding domain compared to its ancestral strain 630. In vitro binding assays using purified C-terminal DNA binding domain of the C. difficile Spo0A protein demonstrate direct binding to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, early sporulation genes and several other putative targets. In vitro binding assays suggest that the gene encoding the major clostridial toxin TcdB may be a direct target of Spo0A, but supernatant derived from a spo0A negative strain was no less toxic towards Vero cells than that obtained from a wild type strain, in contrast to previous reports. These results identify for the first time direct (putative) targets of the Spo0A protein in C. difficile and make a positive effect of Spo0A on production of the large clostridial toxins unlikely.
Text: Sporulation is an adaptive strategy that enables bacteria to survive harsh environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time, and is an integral part of the transmission of sporulating pathogens and their tolerance and resistance towards antimicrobial compounds.
Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation [1, 2] . Most of our knowledge about the protein is based on work in Bacilli. Spo0A is a response regulator that demonstrates phosphorylation dependent binding to DNA [3] [4] [5] . Phosphorylation occurs through the concerted action of several proteins that together form a so called phosphorelay [6] . The signaling cascade allows for the integration of environmental signals into the regulation of Spo0A dependent processes, including sporulation. The two functional domains, the N-terminal phosphorylation and dimerization domain (receiver domain), and the C-terminal DNA binding (effector) domain are separated by a hinge region that is relatively poorly conserved [7] . Phosphorylation is believed to result in a structural rearrangement that facilitates dimerization [8, 9] , resulting in the disruption of transcription-inhibitory contacts between the receiver and effector domains. The isolated DNA binding domain can bind legitimate targets of the Spo0A protein due to the absence of the transcription inhibitory contacts, thereby bypassing the need for phosphorylation [10] . Extensive characterization of Spo0A targets has revealed a motif that represents a high affinity Spo0A binding site, the 0A box [10, 11] . The crystal structure of the DNA binding domain confirms specific and non-specific contacts between the protein and the consensus sequence [12, 13] . It is noteworthy that Spo0A regulates many other processes than sporulation, such as competence for genetic transformation, DNA replication, and biofilm formation in B. subtilis [14] [15] [16] , virulence factors and stress responses in for instance B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] , and solvent production in Clostridium acetobutylicum [22, 23] .
C. difficile is a Gram positive, anaerobic bacterium that is the causative agent of C. difficile infection (CDI) (for recent reviews see [24, 25] ). Though many people are asymptomatically colonized by C. difficile, the bacterium can cause serious health problems, such as pseudomembranous colitis and toxic megacolon, under the influence of risk factors such as age and antibiotic use. As a result, CDI was long regarded a nosocomial infection. Recently, however, an increase in the cases of community acquired CDI can be observed [26] . Outbreaks of CDI have been linked to so called hypervirulent strains, such as PCR ribotypes 027 (BI/ NAP1) and 078 [27, 28] . Its main virulence factors are the major clostridial toxins A and B [29, 30] . In addition, certain strains of C. difficile, including ribotypes 027 and 078, additionally encode a binary toxin [31, 32] . C. difficile is transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is believed that spores are crucial to successfully infect new hosts, as they are able to withstand the harsh environment of the stomach, and survive antibiotic treatments that alter the endogenous flora, after which C. difficile can overgrow [24, 25] .
There is limited knowledge about the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile. It has been reported that spo0A, as expected, is required for the formation of spores [33] and the gene is required for persistence and transmission in mice [34] . Though the pathways downstream of Spo0A seem to a large extent conserved between B. subtilis and Clostridia, this is less so for the pathways leading to activation of Spo0A [2] . It has been suggested that the orphan histidine kinase CD2492 is involved in the activation of Spo0A [35] . Similarly, it was reported that multiple orphan histidine kinases can phosphorylate Spo0A in C. acetobutylicum [36] . Recently, it was reported that spo0A can be transcribed from a SigH-dependent promoter [37] . It is unknown which genes are regulated by direct binding of Spo0A to their upstream regions.
Here, we establish an in vitro binding assay for C. difficile Spo0A and demonstrate for the first time direct binding of this transcription factor to DNA upstream of several putative target genes.
Escherichia coli strains were routinely grown in Luria-Bertani broth or plates, supplemented with appropriate antibiotics. Chloramphenicol was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL for agar plates and 10 mg/mL for liquid cultures. Ampicillin was used at a final concentration of 100 mg/mL. Kanamycin was used at a final concentration of 20 mg/mL. Cloning was carried out using E. coli DH5a, overexpression was performed in E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). C. difficile strains were grown in a glucose-free trypton-yeast based medium (TTY; 3% w/v bactotrypton (BD), 2% yeast extract (Fluka), 0.1% w/v thioglycollate (Sigma) pH 7.4), supplemented with 20 mg/mL of lincomycin when appropriate, or on CLO or TSS plates (Biomerieux).
All plasmids are listed in Table 1 . Primers (obtained from Sigma Aldrich) are listed in Text S1 and specific cycling conditions are available on request. Unless noted otherwise, PCR reactions were carried out using Pfu polymerase (Fermentas) according to the instructions of the manufacturer.
Plasmid pWKS1251, for the overproduction of Spo0A-DBD carrying a C-terminal 66His-tag, was constructed as follows. A sequence corresponding to the DNA binding domain of Spo0A was amplified using primers oWKS-1123a and oWKS-1124 using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile strain 630Derm as a template. The resulting fragment was cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO (Invitrogen), yielding pWKS1247. This plasmid was digested with NdeI and XhoI, separated on a 1% agarose/0.56 TAE (20 mM Tris Acetate, 0.5 mM EDTA) gel, the fragment corresponding to the DNA binding domain was recovered by gel-isolation (using a GeneJET Gel Extraction kit, Fermentas) and cloned into similarly digested pMF14 [10] that had been gel-isolated in the same manner. The construct was verified by PCR, restriction analyses and DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-135 and oWKS-136 (see below).
Plasmid pWKS1245, for the production of full length Spo0A carrying a C-terminal 6xHis-tag, was constructed in a similar manner using chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm as a template, but using the PCR product of primers oWKS-1122 and oWKS-1123a.
Plasmids used as PCR templates for generating EMSA probes were constructed by cloning the PCR products into pCR2.1-TOPO. The inserts, and in the case of the mutated PabrB promoters the presence of the desired point mutations in the consensus 0A box, were verified by DNA sequencing using primers oWKS-24 and oWKS-25 (see below).
Sequence grade plasmids were isolated using a Nucleospin Plasmid QuickPure kit (Macherey Nagel) according to the manufacturer's instructions, except that two lysis reactions were combined onto a single filter and eluted with 65uC prewarmed AE buffer. All constructs were sequenced using BigDye Terminator chemistry (Invitrogen) on an ABI3130 sequencer (Perkin Elmer), according to the instructions of the manufacturers. In short, ,200 ng of plasmid was mixed with 3.2 pmol of primer, 1 mL Terminator Ready Reaction Mix (Invitrogen) in a final volume of 20 mL. After thermocycling, DNA was precipitated and washed with 65% isopropanol, and dissolved in 12 mL HiDi formamid (Invitrogen) at 96uC for 2 mins and stored in the dark at 4uC until the sequencing run. Sequence analyses were performed in CloneManager Professional Suite 7 (SciEd) and Geneious version 5.6.2 (Biomatters Ltd).
Plasmids pWKS1245 and pWKS1251 were transformed into E. coli Rosetta(DE3) pLysS (Novagen). Transformants were used to inoculate 25 mL of LB with appropriate antibiotics. After overnight incubation, the cells were 1:100 diluted in 500 mL fresh medium containing appropriate antibiotics. Protein production was induced with 1 mM IPTG at an OD600 of 0.7 and growth was continued for another three hours before harvesting. Cells were washed with ice cold PBS and stored at 280uC for later use. Purification of the proteins was essentially done as described [10] . In short, cells were disrupted in 4 mL lysis buffer (2 mM PMSF, 10 mM imidazole, 5 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). Cleared cell lysates we incubated with 2 mL pre-equilibrated 50% TALON slurry (Clontech) in a final volume of 15 mL lysis buffer for 1 hr. The resin was allowed to settle on a Poly-Prep column (BioRad) and washed with 2 mL wash buffer (20 mM imidazole, 300 mM NaCl, 50 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , pH 7.9). The protein was stepwise eluted in 1 mL fractions after applying 2 mL elution buffer to the column (identical to wash buffer but with 50, 100, 250 or 500 mM imidazole). The whole procedure was carried out at 4uC. Fractions were assayed for purity and yield and suitable fractions were dialysed against 26 1L dialysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5 mM DTT) using Slide-A-Lyzer cassettes with a molecular weight cut-off of 3.5 kDa (Pierce).
Proteins were stored at 280uC in storage buffer (identical to dialysis buffer but containing 20% glycerol). Protein concentrations were determined using Bradford reagent (BioRad), according to the manufacturer's instructions.
DNA fragments for use in EMSA experiment were generated by PCR using GoTaq polymerase (Promega) and chromosomal DNA from B. subtilis JH642 (Bacillus Genetic Stock Center 1A96; http://www.bgsc.org), plasmids listed in Table 1 , or chromosomal DNA from C. difficile 630Derm [38] as a template. Primers and specific cycling conditions for generation of the EMSA probes are listed in Text S1. DNA fragments of the expected size were isolated from a 16TAE/8% native polyacrylamide gel using diffusion buffer (0.5 M ammonium acetate, 10 mM magnesium acetate, 1 mM EDTA pH 8, 0.1% SDS) and a QIAExII kit (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Recovered DNA was end-labeled with 32P-c-ATP using FR buffer and T4 kinase (Invitrogen) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Specific activity was determined on a LS6000 scintillation counter (Beckman).
EMSA conditions were based on previous studies [10] . In short, binding reactions were carried out in binding buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.6, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT, 5% glycerol) in the presence of 200 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (NEB) and 200 cpm/mL radiolabeled DNA fragment. Reactions were incubated for 20 minutes at 30uC prior to loading on a 16TAE/8% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel that was prerun for 20 minutes at 50 V in 16 TAE buffer. Electrophoresis was carried out for 120 min at 85 V. After vacuum drying the gels onto filter paper, they were imaged after overnight exposure on Phosphorimager screens on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare).
The toxic effects of C. difficile culture supernatants on Vero cells (a kind gift of Eric Snijder [39] ) were determined as follows. Supernatant from a bacterial culture was harvested by centrifuging cells for 3 minutes at 140006g and filtered on a 0.45 mM cellulose acetate filter using a syringe. Supernatants were 2-fold serially diluted in cell culture medium (Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (Lonza) supplemented with 100 mg/mL penicillin, 100 U/mL streptomycin, 10% fetal calf serum), before applying them to a monolayer of Vero cells, and incubation was continued for another hour. As a positive control, 50 mL 1:10 diluted purified toxin (Techlab) was added to the cells. To determine if observed cytotoxic effects were specific for the large clostridial toxins, commercially available anti-toxin against TcdA and TcdB (Techlab) was added to 10-fold diluted bacterial supernatant for 60 min prior to incubation on the Vero cells. Toxin end-point titres were defined as the lowest dilution at which no cytopathological effects (cell rounding) were observed.
Statistical significance was evaluated with an independent sample t-test.
Immunization of mice with full length C. difficile Spo0A-6xHis was kindly performed at the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute (Hinxton, UK). Cells from 1 mL of C. difficile culture were collected by centrifugation for 1 min at 14000 rpm in a table top centrifuge and resuspended in 200 mL resuspension buffer (10 mM Tris HCl pH 8, 10 mM EDTA, 0.5 mg/mL lysozyme, 1 mM Pefabloc SC (Roche)). After incubation for 30 mins at 37uC, 50 mL of 56 SDS sample buffer (0.1 M DTT, 2% SDS, 50 mM Tris HCl pH 6.8, 10% glycerol, 0.0025% BPB) was added, and samples were heated to 96uC for 5 mins. Total cell lysates (amounts corrected for OD 600 ) were separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel prior to semi-dry blotting for 1 h at 10 V to a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. Membranes were blocked in PBST buffer (phosphate buffered saline with 0.1% v/v Tween-20) containing 5% membrane blocking reagent (Amersham Biosciences). To visualize Spo0A protein cleared polyclonal serum from a single mouse at a 1:3000 dilution was used, followed by either a goat-anti-mouse HRP-conjugated secondary antibody followed by ECL+ detection (Amersham Bioscience), or a goatanti-mouse-biotin-conjugated secondary antibody (Dako) followed by a tertiary mouse-anti-biotin Cy3-conjugated antibody (Jackson). Detection was done using on a Typhoon instrument (GE Healthcare). Background corrected peak volumes were quantified using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences).
Alignments of B. subtilis and C. difficile spo0A were made using ClustalW2 (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/) on the basis of the published genome sequences, Genbank accession numbers AL009126 and AM180355, respectively, and the 630Derm spo0A sequence as determined in this study. The sequence for spo0A of C. difficile strain 630Derm was deposited in Genbank (accession no JX050222). Consensus Spo0A boxes were identified using a Single string Search command in Genome2D [40] , allowing 0 mismatches. The box positions were linked to upand downstream genes using the ''Add nearest gene to List of DNA Motifs'' feature and Microsoft Excel. The results were manually inspected for those boxes within 500 bp upstream of a gene on the same strand. Figures for publication were prepared using ImageQuant TL (Amersham Biosciences), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc) and Corel Graphics Suite X5 (Corel Corporation).
In order to characterize C. difficile Spo0A, the full length protein and its DNA binding domain (DBD) were expressed as a Cterminally 66His-tagged protein in the heterologous host Escherichia coli (Fig. 1A) and purified to near homogeneity using metal affinity chromatography ( Fig. 1A ; lanes P). Full length protein was used to raise antibodies to detect Spo0A in total lysates of C. difficile strains, and the purified DNA binding domain was used in subsequent in vitro binding assays (see below).
We determined the expression of C. difficile Spo0A throughout growth. We found that the protein is present in lysates from exponential to stationary growth phase cells. We performed immunoblotting using polyclonal antibodies against C. difficile Spo0A on total lysates of wild type and spo0A mutant cells grown in a trypton-yeast based medium (TTY). We found a clear signal of the size expected for full length Spo0A (,31 kDa) as early as 3 hours post inoculation (exponential growth phase), through transition phase (8 h) as well as 24 and 48 hours post inoculation (stationary growth phase) ( Figure 1B; 630Derm) . The signals were specific for C. difficile Spo0A as they were absent from lysates from the C. difficile spo0A mutant (Fig. 1B , CT::spo0A). We obtained similar results in other media, such as the commonly used supplemented brain heart infusion broth (BHIS; data not shown).
To determine relative levels of Spo0A throughout growth, we performed an immunoblot experiment using fluorescent antibodies, which gives more quantitative information compared to the use of horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibodies in our hands. We found that the levels of Spo0A increases approximately 20-fold from 6 hours post inoculation and remains at similar levels from 8 to 48 hours post inoculation ( Figure 1C ).
Though it should be noted that the Western blots do not provide information on the phosphorylation state of the protein, we conclude that the protein in active or inactive form is present throughout growth and is more abundant in stationary growth phase.
Spo0A of C. difficile Strain 630Derm Contains a 6aminoacid Duplication BLAST homology searches readily identify a homolog of the well-characterized B. subtilis Spo0A protein in C. difficile 630 (CD1214) and previous work demonstrated that a spo0A mutant (an insertional inactivation of cd1214) -as expected -no longer forms spores [41] . In silico analyses suggest a similar secondary structure for both proteins ( Fig. 2A) , with a conserved dimerization and DNA binding domain, separated by a poorly conserved hinge region [7, 12] .
We compared the sequence of CD1214 obtained from our lab strain 630Derm [38] to that of the published C. difficile 630 genome [42] . Strain 630Derm is a spontaneous erythromycin sensitive strain, which is commonly used in mutagenesis studies and was obtained by serial passaging of strain 630 [33, 38] . The 630Derm spo0A sequence (Genbank accession no JX050222) was derived from the expression plasmids constructed for this study, and confirmed in a whole genome sequence of strain 630Derm generated in our lab (data not shown). We found that 630Derm spo0A contains an 18 base pair direct repeat, resulting in a 6 amino acid (NVGNIE) duplication compared to the published reference sequence. The duplication maps to a region of the protein with relatively low sequence conservation (hinge), flanking the highly conserved DNA binding domain ( Fig. 2A and B) . We verified the absence of this duplication in strain 630 by PCR (Fig. 2C ) as well as sequencing from the chromosomal DNA of C. difficile 630 (data not shown), to rule out an error in the original genome sequence and to demonstrate that the difference in size of the PCR product was specific to the 18 bp insertion. In addition, we checked several other strains of PCR ribotypes 12 (to which 630 and 630Derm belong) by PCR, but the duplication was found to be unique to 630Derm among the isolates tested (data not shown).
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Shows Similar Specificity as B. subtilis Spo0A-DBD Next, we examined the conservation of the DNA binding domain of Spo0A (Spo0A-DBD) between B. subtilis and C. difficile. In B. subtilis amino acid residues contacting the backbone of the DNA and interacting with specific residues of the Spo0A binding sequence have been defined [13] . We found that all these residues were conserved in the C. difficile protein sequence (Fig. 2B) , indicating that the protein likely recognizes a similar motif.
DNA binding by full length Spo0A in B. subtilis requires phosphorylation dependent dimerization [8, 9] . However, it was shown that the isolated DBD is capable of binding to legitimate targets of the full length protein [10] . Analogously, we purified the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD for use in in vitro binding assays. As no direct targets for the C. difficile protein have been reported so far, we used the upstream region of the abrB gene (PabrB) of B. subtilis. PabrB is commonly used as a high-affinity control in binding assays with the B. subtilis Spo0A or Spo0A-DBD protein [43, 44] . It is noteworthy that we failed to identify a homolog of abrB in C. difficile using BLAST, indicating that potential indirect regulation by Spo0A cannot occur through abrB in C. difficile as it does in B. subtilis. We found that C. difficile Spo0A-DBD bound with high affinity to PabrB (Fig. 2D and E) . We performed electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) using radiolabeled PabrB and increasing amounts of purified C. difficile Spo0A-DBD that was purified using a C-terminal 66His-tag. The addition of protein leads to a dose-dependent retardation of the DNA fragment with an apparent K D of ,50 nM. In the same range of protein concentrations, no binding was observed for a negative control (a DNA fragment of B. subtilis citG [45] ) (Fig. 2E) , suggesting that binding was specific for the abrB promoter region.
B. subtilis Spo0A recognizes a distinct sequence (0A box), that is characterized by a 7 bp core motif (TGTCGAA) [10, 11] . Structural studies have revealed that the protein makes specific contacts with the G at position 2 (G2), and the C at position 4 (C4) and 5 (G5) of this motif [13] . We introduced G2A, C4A, G5A, G2A/C4A and C4A/G5A mutations in the perfect consensus core 0A-box present in PabrB. We found that the affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for these mutated PabrB fragments was highly reduced (Fig. 2E) . We performed EMSAs using radiolabeled PabrB containing the mutated core sequence. For the single point mutations in the DNA, the affinity decreased ,10-fold. There did not seem to be an additive effect of a second point mutation for the two combinations tested. None of the mutations abolished binding of C. difficile Spo0A completely, most likely as the result of binding of Spo0A to other (non-consensus) 0A boxes in the abrB promoter [44] .
Taken together, we conclude that the guanine and cytosine residues in the core TGTCGAA motif of PabrB are important for specific binding of this fragment by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD.
Value for Binding by C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Above, we have established that the Spo0A-DBD of C. difficile is highly homologous to that of the B. subtilis Spo0A protein, and that the proteins recognize a similar consensus sequence (Fig. 2 ). Based on this information, we identified the several genes as putative direct targets of C. difficile Spo0A.
We queried the C. difficile 630 genome sequence for perfect matches to the core 0A box using Genome2D [40] . Such an analysis revealed the presence of 102 matching motifs, of which 45 were located within 500 bp of the initiating ATG of an open reading frame on the same strand (see Table S1 ). Our attention was drawn to spo0A and sigH, as these two genes were previously found to be regulated by Spo0A in B. subtilis and/or play important roles in sporulation [3, [46] [47] [48] . We found that C. difficile Spo0A bound to DNA sequences upstream of spo0A and sigH.
We performed EMSAs with DNA encompassing 220-281 bp upstream of the initiating ATG codon of the spo0A, sigH and spoVG open reading frames. We found that the addition of Spo0A-DBD to the reactions caused retardation of the spo0A and sigH DNA fragments (Fig. 3A) , but not of a spoVG fragment which did not contain a consensus 0A box (Fig. 3B) . It should be noted that the affinity of Spo0A-DBD for the region upstream of spo0A was the highest we have observed so far for any C. difficile DNA. Moreover, the presence of multiple shifted species could indicate the presence of more than one strong binding site. These results establish that spo0A and sigH are likely legitimate targets of Spo0A in C. difficile, and confirm that spoVG is not, in line with results obtained in B. subtilis [10] .
We were interested to see if Spo0A in C. difficile could potentially regulate genes that have no documented function in sporulation. Our in silico analysis identified several genes with no obvious link to sporulation that had a consensus 0A box within 100 bp upstream of their start codon. This positioning is similar to that observed for spo0A (275) and sigH (278). We confirmed in vitro binding of the C. difficile Spo0A-DBD to the promoter regions of lplA and ssuA.
We carried out EMSA experiments using probes that included the perfect consensus site and purified Spo0A-DBD protein. We observed binding of the protein to fragments upstream of the lplA gene (CD1654; box at 267) and the ssuA gene (CD1484; box at 282) (Fig. 3A) . The lplA gene encodes a predicted lipoate-protein ligase, and ssuA is annotated as an aliphatic sulfonates ABC transporter; to our knowledge, neither of these have been directly implicated in sporulation or have found to be targets for Spo0A in other organisms.
Together our results establish the potential for binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of spo0A and sigH, two genes that are important for sporulation, and indicate that Spo0A may have functions that go beyond the regulation of sporulation in C. difficile.
It has been established that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile does not produce any spores, consistent with a crucial role in the sporulation pathway [33] . However, the in silico identification of upstream regions with a consensus Spo0A binding site did not point to any of the early sporulation genes (downstream of spo0A itself) as direct targets of Spo0A. This is likely the result of variations in the 0A-box in these promoters that were disregarded in the box search. In support of this, many well-characterized legitimate direct targets of B. subtilis Spo0A (such as spoIIAA and spoIIE) do not contain a 100% match to the core motif, but rather one or more near-consensus boxes [5, 49] . We found that Spo0A- We performed EMSA experiments using increasing amounts of purified Spo0A-DBD from C. difficile 630Derm and the DNA fragments indicated above (Fig. 3B ). For spoIIAA (encoding an antianti sigma-factor) and spoIIE (encoding a serine phosphatase), we observed a low intensity shifted species at concentrations as low as 150 nM. For spoIIGA (encoding a sporulation specific protease) we observed the shifted species only at higher concentrations of protein (.200 nM). The negative control (spoVG) did not demonstrate binding of Spo0A-DBD at these concentrations. Moreover, the shift we observed was reversible using unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not using unlabeled DNA that lacked such a site ( Figure S1B-D) . Therefore, we consider the binding to spoIIAA, spoIIE and spoIIGA genes to be specific, despite the fact that increasing the amount of protein did not seem to cause a significant increase in the amount of DNA in the complex.
Together, these results suggest that Spo0A in C. difficile might regulate the transcription of at least a subset of early sporulation genes by direct binding to their promoter regions.
C. difficile Spo0A-DBD Binds to DNA Upstream of tcdB It has previously been reported that the deletion of Spo0A in C. difficile results in a significantly lower toxin production and a ,1000-fold reduction in the toxicity of culture supernatant derived from spo0A negative cells towards Vero cells [35] . Considering the absence of a homolog of the abrB repressor, direct binding of Spo0A and concomitant activation of toxin gene transcription is a likely mechanism through which this could occur. We found evidence for direct binding of Spo0A-DBD to the region upstream of tcdB, encoding one of the major clostridial toxin genes, and possibly tcdC, but this did not seem to result in lower toxin levels in our hands.
We performed EMSAs using DNA upstream of tcdR (encoding a sigma factor responsible for the activation of toxin gene transcription), tcdB (encoding toxin B), tcdA (encoding toxin A). In order to test regions upstream of all open reading frames in the PaLoc, we also tested binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of tcdE (encoding a holin-like protein [50, 51] ) and tcdC (encoding a putative negative regulator of toxin production [52] [53] [54] ), even though this regulator does not have a significant effect on toxin levels under the conditions we used [55, 56] . Of the regions tested, we only observed a clear shifted species, indicative of Spo0A binding, for tcdB ( Figure 4A ); the shifted species in our EMSA assay was reversed by the addition of unlabeled DNA containing a high affinity binding site, but not by DNA lacking such a site ( Figure S1E ). For tcdC, some smearing was observed at all concentrations of proteins tested ( Figure 4A ), and there did not seem to be a clear effect of the addition of unlabeled DNA fragments ( Figure S1F ). The probes for tcdA, tcdE and tcdR were indistinguishable from those obtained with our negative control, spoVG.
We wanted to determine if toxin levels in culture supernatants were directly or indirectly affected by Spo0A, as was previously suggested. We found no lower toxicity towards Vero cells of culture supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type.
We grew three independent biological replicates of a wild type (630Derm) or Clostron-generated spo0A mutant (CT::spo0A -a kind gift of the Minton lab) in glucose-free TTY medium. We harvested culture supernatant at late-exponential phase (approximately 7 hours post inoculation), the transition phase between exponential and stationary growth phase (approximately 9 hours post inoculation), as well as two time points in stationary phase (24 and 48 hours post inoculation) and determined the toxin endpoint titres (see Materials and Methods). In contrast to previous findings, we observed a small (#4-fold) increase in the toxicity of supernatants derived from spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type, but in all cases this difference was not statistically significant (p.0.05, independent sample t-test). In other medium (BHIS), we observed no differences at all (data not shown).
We conclude that Spo0A does not positively affect toxin production in C. difficile 630Derm and the in vivo relevance of the binding to regions upstream of tcdB and/or tcdC is therefore limited under our experimental conditions.
The Spo0A-box of C. difficile In B. subtilis, the binding site of Spo0A on target DNA has been well-characterized, through a combination of in vitro binding assays, determination of in vivo binding profiles and mutagenesis of regulated promoter sequences. This work has led to the identification of a conserved core motif, TGTCGAA, or Spo0A box [5, 10, 11, 45] . Depending on the analysis, this motif is flanked by one or more adenine or thymine residues [10, 11] . Interestingly, many target genes do not harbor a perfect match to this consensus sequence, but rather contain one or more degenerate motifs. The differences in these motifs may reflect different promoter architectures (e.g. AT content), modes of action (e.g. activation or repression) or levels of regulation. Spo0A genes in B. subtilis can be divided in different classes that respond to different levels of phosphorylated Spo0A [43, 57] .
For C. difficile, we conclude that the Spo0A protein likely recognizes a motif that is similar to the B. subtilis Spo0A box on the basis of four lines of evidence; 1. All DNA binding/contacting residues are conserved (Fig. 2B) , 2. C. difficile Spo0A can bind with high affinity to a target of B. subtilis Spo0A (Fig. 2D) , 3. Mutagenesis of key residues in the B. subtilis Spo0A box reduces affinity of C. difficile Spo0A for DNA (Fig. 2E ) and 4. A B. subtilis Spo0A box has predictive value for DNA binding by C. difficile Spo0A (Fig. 3A) . It is conceivable that our model system, using the purified DNA binding domain, does not accurately reflect binding to all target sites, if target site selectivity is determined in part by other parts by of the full length protein. It is likely that differences do exist between the preferred binding sites for both proteins that will be evident when a comprehensive analysis is performed of in vivo DNA binding of C. difficile Spo0A; based on the limited data set of this study, a MEME analysis [58] already suggests possible differences in the extended Spo0A motif (W.K. Smits, unpublished observations). These differences may relate to the much higher AT content of C. difficile compared to B. subtilis (71 vs. 56.5%, respectively), or phosphorylation dependent dimerization, for instance.
The initiation of sporulation in B. subtilis is subject to complex regulation (for review see ref [1, 59] ). The activation of Spo0A is controlled by a multi-component phosphorelay that can integrate environmental cues [60] and ensures a gradual increase in the level of phosphorylated Spo0A in the cell [57] . In addition, the transcription of the spo0A gene is controlled by multiple feedback loops. For instance, Spo0A regulates its own transcription by binding to the spo0A promoter [46] , as well as by indirectly stimulating the transcription of sigH, encoding a sigma factor that recognizes the spo0A promoter [48] .
In C. difficile, there are some interesting differences and similarities in the regulatory pathways. Most notably, there seems to be no phosphorelay [2] and the phosphorylation state of Spo0A is supposedly controlled by orphan histidine kinases [35] . The transcription of spo0A in C. difficile is under control of the transition state sigma factor Sigma H [37] , as it is in B. subtilis [61] . Our data indicate that both spo0A and sigH could be targets for direct regulation by Spo0A in C. difficile (Fig. 3A) , raising the possibility of auto-regulation of spo0A. The putative direct regulation of sigH by Spo0A may reflect that the C. difficile genome does not harbor a homolog of the pleiotropic regulator AbrB, which is responsible for the Spo0A-dependent regulation of sigH in B. subtilis [48] . Consistent with a model in which spo0A is positively autoregulated, we noted a sharp increase in the levels of Spo0A as cells approach the stationary growth phase ( Figure 1C) .
Downstream of Spo0A, we found binding of Spo0A to DNA upstream of several early sporulation genes, such as spoIIAA, spoIIE, and spoIIGA (Fig. 3B ). All these observations are consistent with direct regulation of these genes by Spo0A in other organisms [5, 45, 49, 62] , and the conservation of the sporulation pathway [2] .
Though Spo0A is the key regulator for sporulation in Firmicutes, it regulates numerous other processes in various bacteria. In the non-pathogenic B. subtilis, for instance, the protein also affects competence development, biofilm formation, the production of and resistance to antimicrobial compounds, chromosome dynamics and aspects of phage biology [10, [14] [15] [16] . Importantly, several of these processes are indirectly regulated, through the Spo0A-dependent repression of abrB. Additionally, transcription of abrB responds already to low levels of Spo0A,P [43] . As a result these effects are detectable in late-exponential and early stationary phase, as some Spo0A is present throughout growth in B. subtilis cells.
Though abrB is absent from C. difficile, this does not exclude the possibility of indirect transcriptional regulation through Spo0Adependent effects on other regulators. Alternatively, Spo0A may exert a direct effect. In Clostridium acetobutylicum and C. beijerinckii, Spo0A is a direct regulator of solvent formation, as well as sporulation [22, 23] . It seems therefore conceivable that Spo0A in C. difficile also affects aspects of metabolism. In this respect, it is important to note that also in C. difficile Spo0A is detectable from early exponential growth phase on ( Figure 1B) .
We observed direct binding of C. difficile Spo0A to the promoter region of sigH (Fig. 3A) . This gene encodes the key sigma factor for the transition phase, and regulates processes outside sporulation as well [37] . Moreover, we found significant levels of Spo0A from early stationary phase on ( Fig. 1B and unpublished observations) , indicating the regulatory actions of Spo0A need not be limited to stationary phase in C. difficile. In line with this idea, we found a potential regulatory link between Spo0A and two genes that to our knowledge are not related to the sporulation process, the lipoate ligase lplA and the aliphatic sulfonates transporter ssuA (Fig. 3A) . The presence of a putative Spo0A binding site upstream of these genes, as well as the spacing compared to the start codon, is conserved in the problematic Stoke-Mandeville strain (R20291), a member of PCR ribotype 27. This could indicate that these aspects of regulation by Spo0A are conserved in multiple strains of C. difficile.
It should be noted that our work so far has been limited to an in vitro analysis of Spo0A binding, and therefore does not indicate whether activation or repression of the putative target genes occurs in vivo. To answer this question, detailed transcriptome and/or proteome studies have to be performed. In order to distinguish direct from indirect effects, in vivo binding profiles of Spo0A should be performed. The antibodies generated for this study should prove to be useful for this type of experiments.
Amongst the pathogenic Firmicutes, Spo0A has been reported to affect toxin production in multiple species. In B. anthracis a spo0A mutation results in elevated levels of AbrB, and concomitantly lower levels of the toxin genes pagA, cya and lef that are under AbrB control [17] . Similarly, the production of the emetic toxin cereulide in B. cereus is greatly repressed in a spo0A mutant, in an AbrB-dependent manner [63] . In contrast, Spo0A directly represses the expression of the cry toxin genes in B. thuringiensis and a spo0A mutant is therefore a hyper-producer of the insecticidal crystal protein [18, 21] . In Clostridium perfringens TpeL, a member of the large clostridial toxins just like TcdA and TcdB, is directly dependent on Spo0A [64] and also the production of enterotoxin in this organism seems to be (indirectly) dependent on sporulation [65, 66] .
In C. difficile an insertional spo0A mutant generated using Clostron technology was reported to have ,10-fold reduced levels of toxin A (TcdA), both intracellularly and extracellularly as well as ,1000-fold reduced toxicity towards Vero cells, which are primarily sensitive towards toxin B (TcdB) [35] . Our in vitro binding data indicate a potential binding site for Spo0A upstream of tcdB and possibly tcdC (Fig. 4A) . However, the in vivo relevance of this binding seems limited as in our hands an independently derived but otherwise identical mutant (a kind gift of the Minton lab; [33] ) did not demonstrate a reduced toxicity towards Vero cells. In contrast, we found that in TTY medium toxin levels were slightly elevated in spo0A mutant cells compared to wild type (#2fold in exponential phase cells up to 4-fold in late-stationary phase cells). The small, and not significant, differences in toxin levels in our experiments might be attributed to differences in the susceptibility of cells for lysis rather than the production of toxin, but could also indicate a negative regulatory effect of Spo0A on toxin production. In support of the latter hypothesis, it was recently reported that a spo0A mutant of C. difficile strain R20291 (a PCR ribotypes 027/BI/NAP1 epidemic strain) demonstrates ,10fold higher toxin levels than its isogenic wild type 30 h post inoculation, and is significantly more virulent in a mouse model of disease [34] .
The differences between Underwood et al [35] on the one hand and our study as well as the study of Deakin and coworkers [34] on the other hand may be explained by differences in experimental conditions, such as the medium used. However, we observed no difference in cytotoxicity between supernatant derived from wild type or spo0A mutant cells when they were grown in BHIS, a medium nearly identical to that used previously (data not shown). Alternatively, the differences could indicate integration of the group II intron at more than one location in the chromosome in the strain used in Underwood et al [35] . In the absence of a complementation experiment and/or Southern blot data, this remains to be established.
In summary, our data are consistent with a model in which the regulation of the major clostridial toxins in C. difficile is not positively affected by Spo0A, in contrast to previous findings and other pathogenic Clostridia. Whether Spo0A is truly a negative regulator of toxin production remains to be confirmed using in vitro and in vivo transcription assays.
In the present study we have for the first time demonstrated direct binding of the DNA binding domain of C. difficile Spo0A to putative target DNA. This work has revealed that aspects of Spo0A binding are conserved between Bacillus and C. difficile (0A box, possible auto-regulation and binding to early sporulation promoters), whereas others are not (the absence of abrB as a direct target in C. difficile, binding to DNA upstream of lplA, ssuA). The effects of Spo0A on toxin production may be similar to those observed for B. thuringiensis [18, 21] . Future work will be aimed at determining the effect of Spo0A on the transcription of the putative target genes, and carry out a comprehensive analysis of Spo0A binding in vivo. The identification of genes affected by Spo0A in C. difficile may shed light on the role of the protein in virulence and pathogenesis of this organism.
Figure S1 Specificity controls for binding by Spo0A-DBD-his6. Arrows indicate the position of shifted species (DNA:protein complexes). Titrations with PCR fragments of PabrB (containing a high affinity binding site) and PtcdA (lacking such a site) correspond to approximately 0.1 nM/mL -0.03 nM/ mL. A. Comparison of binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6, Spo0A-his6 and CD2195-his6 binding to the upstream region of spoIIAA. B. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIAA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA). C. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIE is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. D. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of spoIIGA is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. E. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdB is reversed by the addition of PabrB, but not by the addition of PtcdA. F. Binding of Spo0A-DBD-his6 to the upstream region of tcdC is not or moderately affected by the addition of PabrB and/or PtcdA. (TIF) Text S1 Oligonucleotides used in this study and PCR cycling conditions for the EMSA probes. (PDF) | What are the main virulence factors in C. difficle? | 916 | toxins A and B | 4,755 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What laboratory test can be used to monitor protein expression? | 941 | Western blot | 31,495 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | How is Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus transmitted? | 933 | by mosquitoes | 3,319 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What are the symptoms of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus? | 934 | fever, malaise, and vomiting | 3,832 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What is the mortality rate of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus in children? | 935 | 35% | 4,088 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What is the mortality rate of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus in adults? | 936 | 10% | 4,108 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What vaccine can be used to prevent Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus? | 937 | TC83 | 4,679 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What can RNA sequencing be used to monitor? | 938 | changes in gene expression | 9,025 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What activates the UPR pathway in the cell? | 939 | protein misfolding | 30,935 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What indicators does the UPR pathway use to regulate protein folding and secretion in the cell? | 940 | inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) | 31,128 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | Where does EGR1 accumulate in the cell? | 942 | nucleus | 33,361 |
1,679 | Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus Induces Apoptosis through the Unfolded Protein Response Activation of EGR1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794670/
SHA: f4aa788ab898b28b00ee103e4d4ab24a2c684caf
Authors: Baer, Alan; Lundberg, Lindsay; Swales, Danielle; Waybright, Nicole; Pinkham, Chelsea; Dinman, Jonathan D.; Jacobs, Jonathan L.; Kehn-Hall, Kylene
Date: 2016-03-11
DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02827-15
License: cc-by
Abstract: Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a previously weaponized arthropod-borne virus responsible for causing acute and fatal encephalitis in animal and human hosts. The increased circulation and spread in the Americas of VEEV and other encephalitic arboviruses, such as eastern equine encephalitis virus and West Nile virus, underscore the need for research aimed at characterizing the pathogenesis of viral encephalomyelitis for the development of novel medical countermeasures. The host-pathogen dynamics of VEEV Trinidad donkey-infected human astrocytoma U87MG cells were determined by carrying out RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) of poly(A) and mRNAs. To identify the critical alterations that take place in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection, samples were collected at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection and RNA-Seq data were acquired using an Ion Torrent PGM platform. Differential expression of interferon response, stress response factors, and components of the unfolded protein response (UPR) was observed. The protein kinase RNA-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK) arm of the UPR was activated, as the expression of both activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4) and CHOP (DDIT3), critical regulators of the pathway, was altered after infection. Expression of the transcription factor early growth response 1 (EGR1) was induced in a PERK-dependent manner. EGR1(−/−) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) demonstrated lower susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than isogenic wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following VEEV infection. The influence of EGR1 is of great importance, as neuronal damage can lead to long-term sequelae in individuals who have survived VEEV infection. IMPORTANCE Alphaviruses represent a group of clinically relevant viruses transmitted by mosquitoes to humans. In severe cases, viral spread targets neuronal tissue, resulting in significant and life-threatening inflammation dependent on a combination of virus-host interactions. Currently there are no therapeutics for infections cause by encephalitic alphaviruses due to an incomplete understanding of their molecular pathogenesis. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is an alphavirus that is prevalent in the Americas and that is capable of infecting horses and humans. Here we utilized next-generation RNA sequencing to identify differential alterations in VEEV-infected astrocytes. Our results indicated that the abundance of transcripts associated with the interferon and the unfolded protein response pathways was altered following infection and demonstrated that early growth response 1 (EGR1) contributed to VEEV-induced cell death.
Text: V enezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) is a New World alphavirus in the family Togaviridae that is endemic to the Americas. VEEV is a positive-strand RNA virus that is transmitted by mosquitoes and that is naturally present in rodent reservoirs (1) . There are six subtypes that are categorized by their geographic range and pathology in equines and humans. The two epizootic strains, IA/B and IC, arose from mutations among the enzootic strains (2) . The IA/B and IC strains are of particular concern due to increased rates of morbidity and mortality and the risks associated with viral amplification and potential species spillover (2) . In humans, VEEV causes a febrile illness typified by fever, malaise, and vomiting. In some cases, infection progresses to the central nervous system (CNS) and neurological symptoms, such as confusion, ataxia, and seizures, manifest. The mortality rate among cases with neurological symptoms can be as high as 35% in children and 10% in adults, with long-term neurological deficits often being seen in survivors (2) . In 1995, an outbreak of VEEV in Colombia and Venezuela resulted in over 100,000 human cases (3) . In addition to natural outbreaks, VEEV is also a concern from a bioterrorism perspective, as it can be grown to high titers, requires a low infectious dose, and contains multiple serotypes. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States previously weaponized the virus, producing large quantities for their now defunct offensive bioweapons programs (4) . Currently, vaccine strain TC83 is used in horses and for high-risk personnel; however, due to the low rate of seroconversion achieved with this vaccine (5) and its reliance on two single attenuating mutations (6) , it is considered unfit for mass distribution (7) . To date there are no FDA-approved therapeutics for VEEV infection, and further studies are required for clarification of the mechanisms associated with the underlying pathogenesis of VEEV.
Viral and host transcriptomic studies can provide a wealth of information on the underlying pathogenic mechanisms and interactions following the course of an infection. The use of highthroughput next-generation sequencing has led to the discovery of previously uncharacterized viruses and the establishment of numerous novel experimental systems redefining virus-host interactions. To date a number of studies have examined the alterations in the host transcriptome following VEEV infection. A comparative microarray analysis between cells persistently infected with VEEV and cells able to clear VEEV resulted in the identification of PARP12L as an antiviral factor (8) . A molecular comparison utilizing microarrays of host-based responses to the TC83 strain was able to identify biomarkers differentiating between vaccine responder and vaccine nonresponder groups, as well as the involvement of interferon (IFN), interferon-induced pathways, Toll-like receptor (TLR), and interleukin 12 (IL-12)related pathways (9) . A study examining the role of adhesion and inflammatory factors in VEEV-infected CD-1 mice found viral modulation of the expression of extracellular matrix and adhesion genes, such as integrins (Itg␣X, Itg2, 3, and 7), cadherins 1 and 2, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), in the brains of VEEV-infected mice (10) . Follow-up experiments utilizing ICAM-1-knockout mice demonstrated reduced inflammation in the brain and a subsequent delay in the onset of neurological sequelae (10) . A study by Sharma et al. utilized microarrays to analyze gene expression changes in the brain tissue of VEEV-infected mice over the course of an infection, discovering numerous immune pathways involved in antigen presentation, inflammation, apoptosis, and the traditional antiviral response (Cxcl10, CxCl11, Ccl5, Ifr7, Ifi27, Oas1b, Fcerg1, Mif, clusterin, and major histocompatibility complex [MHC] class II) (11) . A second study by the same group identified the regulation of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brains of VEEV-infected mice, which enabled the correlation of the miRNA changes with earlier mRNA expression data (11, 12) . These analyses suggest that VEEV may be utilizing cellular miRNAs in order to regulate downstream mRNA, which may correspond with the VEEV-induced histological changes to the nervous system (11, 12) .
In the current study, next-generation RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in the mRNA transcriptome of human astrocytes infected with wildtype (WT) VEEV strain Trinidad donkey (TrD). The analysis of host mRNAs by RNA-Seq provides novel insight into how a host responds to a viral infection through the identification of a wide and dynamic range of transcripts in an unbiased manner. Selective sequencing of mRNAs, specifically, polyadenylated [poly(A)] transcripts, which account for ϳ1% of the entire transcriptome, enhances the detection of the most relevant and low-abundance transcripts (13) . As VEEV has been shown to productively infect astrocytes both in vitro and in vivo (14, 15) , we chose astrocytes as our model of interest. Astrocytes are the most abundant cell in the brain, outnumbering neurons by at least 5-fold (16) , providing an abundant resource for viral replication within the brain. In addition to their well-described structural role in neuronal tissue, as-trocytes play critical roles in other processes, including the regulation of blood flow and of the blood-brain barrier, synapse transmission, and the response to infection (16) . VEEV-infected astrocytes have been shown to produce multiple cytokines, including IL-8, IL-17, interferon gamma (IFN-␥), and gamma interferon-induced protein 10, all of which were found to be associated with viral attenuation (14) .
In order to obtain a dynamic view of the virus-host interactome, RNA-Seq was used to monitor changes in gene expression in VEEV TrD-infected astrocytes at 4, 8, and 16 h postinfection (hpi). By viewing the alterations at multiple early time points using triplicate biological replicates, a robust and dynamic range of information is generated, and this information provides an increase in both the power and the accuracy of detection of differentially expressed transcripts in a highly relevant clinical model (17) . Among VEEV-infected cells, an increase in interferon-regulated genes, including IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, and OASL, was observed. The increased expression of genes involved in the stressinduced unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway was also noted. Interestingly, VEEV infection resulted in an increase in early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), which may serve as a link between the two pathways. The identification of host mRNAs whose expression is altered following VEEV replication, specifically, EGR1 and its interactors up-and downstream, may provide novel host-based therapeutic targets critical for VEEV replication and a greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms underpinning alphavirus replication.
Viral infections and plaque assays. VEEV TrD was obtained from BEI Resources. All experiments with VEEV TrD were performed under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions. All work involving select agents is registered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was conducted at George Mason University's Biomedical Research Laboratory, which is registered in accordance with federal select agent regulations. For infections, VEEV was added to supplemented Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) to achieve a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, 0.5, or 5. Cells were infected for 1 h at 37°C and rotated every 15 min to ensure adequate coverage. The cells were then washed with phosphatebuffered saline (PBS), and complete growth medium was added back to the cells. Viral supernatants and cells were collected at various times postinfection for further analysis. Plaque assays were performed as previously described (18) . mRNA isolation and poly(A) library preparation. RNA from U87MG cells was purified from both VEEV TrD-infected (biosafety level 3) and mock-infected U87MG cells at 4, 8, and 16 hpi utilizing a mirVana isolation kit (Life Technologies). Quality control of purified RNA was then performed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer, and an RNA integrity number (RIN) cutoff of 8 was utilized for all samples. An External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA spike-in control mix was then added to the total RNA inputs (10 g RNA) before poly(A) selection using a Life Technologies Dynabeads mRNA Direct kit. Preparation of a whole-transcriptome RNA library from purified mRNA was then performed using an Ion Total RNA-Seq kit (v2; Life Technologies). Quality control of the cDNA libraries was then performed using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer along with sterility testing for removal of libraries for sequencing from a BSL-3 to BSL-2 laboratory.
RNA sequencing. Library template preparation was performed on a One Touch 2 platform (Life Technologies). Next-generation RNA sequencing was performed on an Ion Torrent PGM platform and was carried out for each sample to assess the differential gene expression of infected versus uninfected cells over time.
Data filtering and RNA-Seq analysis pipeline. A total of ϳ119 million sequencing reads and an average of 6.6 million reads per sample were used as the input into our analysis pipeline. Unless otherwise noted, downstream RNA-Seq analysis was carried out using the CLC bio Genomics Workbench (v7). Raw RNA-Seq reads were trimmed to remove any residual sequencing adapter fragments that remained on the 5= or 3= ends after sequencing. In addition, end trimming of reads was done using the modified Mott algorithm with a Q20 quality score, and any reads of less than 15 bp were discarded. Following read trimming, the reads were mapped to human genome hg19 with the following RNA-Seq parameters: a 10-hit limit for multiple mapped positions, a similarity fraction of 0.8, a length fraction of 0.8, a mismatch cost of 2, and an indel cost of 3. The expression level of individual genes and transcripts was calculated using the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) method of Mortazavi et al. (19) . In addition, unmapped reads were also mapped to the ERCC92 synthetic RNA sequence set (20) , as well as to the VEEV reference genome (GenBank accession number L01442). In all samples, the correlation coefficient (R 2 ) between the expected and the mapped number of reads for the ERCC92 spike-in controls was above 0.90. A summary of the overall sequencing results is shown in Table 1 .
Postmapping filtering of all RNA-Seq data was carried out next to include only genes with at least one uniquely mapped read (26,230 genes remained across all data sets) and only those with a nonzero interquartile range across the entire experiment. Principal component analysis of the resulting filtered data set (13,906 genes in total) was carried out using raw counts of uniquely mapped reads (see Fig. 2A ). The remaining RPKM expression values for each gene included in the filtered data set were subjected to quantile normalization with a 5% cutoff. A box plot of log 2transformed RPKM values for each sample before normalization is shown in Fig. 2B . The R 2 value for pairwise sample-to-sample variation within each biological replicate set was observed to range from 0.89 to 0.99, indicating that our biological replicates were consistent and showed no strong bias (data not shown).
Differential gene expression analysis. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified using two approaches. First, the empirical analysis of differential gene expression algorithm, part of the edgeR Bioconductor package (21) , was applied to the integrated data set of all 18 experiments using the default parameters and a false discovery rate-corrected P value. At each time point, infected and mock-infected samples were compared, and genes whose expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05 were provisionally considered to be differentially expressed.
In addition to the method described above, an orthogonal statistical test of differential expression was applied to the data using a statistical test developed by Baggerly et al. (22) to count the number of expressed sequence tags associated with individual genes, a common feature of both serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) data and RNA-Seq data. When infected and mock-infected samples were compared, individual genes were provisionally considered differentially expressed when their expression differed by more than 2-fold with a significance with a P value of Յ0.05. Differentially expressed genes found to be in the intersection of the sets of genes identified by both of the methods outlined above were considered high-quality candidates and used as the starting point for further investigation.
Clustering and GSEA. Filtered, normalized expression data were subjected to k-means clustering using a Euclidian distance metric where genes were grouped by means of normalized gene expression (RPKM) values for each experimental condition. Clustering was fitted to 20 distinct clustering groups, and the individual gene expression profiles clustered were further tested for enrichment of gene ontology (GO) terms associated with individual genes. Gene annotations were obtained from Reactome, a database of biological pathway and gene functional annotations (23) . Enrichment analysis was performed using two approaches. First, a hypergeometric test on GO annotations was carried out using an implementation of the GOStats package on each of the individual clusters obtained from k-means clustering (24) . In addition, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was carried out on the entire filtered data set using 100,000 permutations, while duplicates were removed and an analysis of variance was applied. A total of 1,419 categories passed a minimum feature size of 10 and were used for further investigation.
Cohorts of genes with shared patterns of expression over time were identified by k-means clustering. Those found to be enriched for DEGs were subsequently subjected to pathway analysis using the GeneMania system (25) . Using an ad hoc manual approach, relevant pathways and the connections between them were identified on the basis of existing data in the literature coupled with the temporal gene expression data obtained from this study.
qRT-PCR analysis. Purified mRNA was converted to cDNA using a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Analysis of the viral copy numbers was performed by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) as previously described (26) . Host expression of the following genes was assayed with TaqMan assays (indicated in parentheses): activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3; Hs00231069_m1), ATF4 (Hs00909569_g1), CEBPB (Hs00270923_s1), CEBPD (Hs00270931_s1), DDIT3 (Hs00358796_g1), FOS (Hs04194186_s1), JUN (Hs01103582_s1), EGR1 (Hs00152928_m1), IFI6 (Hs00242571_m1), IFIT1 (Hs01911452_s1), IFIT2 (Hs01922738_s1), IFIT3 (Hs01922738_s1), ISG15 (Hs01921425_s1), ISG20 (Hs00158122_m1), OASL (Hs00984387_m1), BIRC5 (Mm00599749_m1), and XIAP (Mm01311594_mH). Assays for 18S rRNA (Hs99999901_s1 or Mm04277571_s1) were used for normalization. Assays were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions using an ABI StepOne Plus instrument.
Treatment with PERKi and collection for Western blot analysis. U87MG cells were pretreated for 2 h with 10 M the protein kinase RNAlike endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK) inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 (catalog number 516535; EMD Millipore) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in DMEM prior to infection with VEEV TrD (MOI, 5). After 1 h, the viral inoculum was removed and cells were washed with sterile PBS (1ϫ). The medium was replaced with medium containing the inhibitor or DMSO. At 16 hpi, the medium was removed, and the cells were washed with PBS and then collected for Western blot analysis.
Knockdown of EGR1 with siRNA. U87MG cells seeded at 6.7 ϫ 10 4 cells per well in a 12-well plate were transfected with 50 nM siGenome Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis. Protein lysate preparation and Western blot analysis were performed as previously described (27) . Primary antibodies to the following were used: EGR1 (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling), polyclonal anti-Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus TC83 (subtype IA/B) capsid protein (BEI Resources), CHOP (antibody L63F7; catalog number 2895; Cell Signaling), phosphorylated ␣ subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (p-eIF2␣; Ser51; antibody D9G8; catalog number 3398; Cell Signaling), ATF4 (antibody D4B8; catalog number 11815; Cell Signaling), activated caspase 3 (antibody Asp175; catalog number 9661; Cell Signaling), and horseradish peroxidase-conjugated -actin (catalog number ab49900-100; Abcam).
Immunofluorescence analysis. U87MG cells were grown on coverslips in a 6-well plate, infected with VEEV TrD as described above, washed with PBS (without Ca and Mg), and then fixed with 4% formaldehyde. Cells were permeabilized with 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 20 min and then washed twice with PBS. The cells were blocked for 10 min at room temperature in 3% bovine serum albumin in PBS. Primary antibodies consisting of a VEEV capsid protein (catalog number NR-9403; BEI Resources) diluted 1:600 and an EGR1 antibody (antibody 44D5; catalog number 4154; Cell Signaling) diluted 1:400 were incubated in fresh blocking buffer at 37°C for 1 h and washed 3 times for 3 min each time in 300 mM NaCl with 0.1% Triton X-100. Alexa Fluor 568 donkey anti-goat secondary antibody (catalog number A11057; Invitrogen) and Alexa Fluor 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (catalog number A21202; Invitrogen) diluted 1:400 were used as secondary antibodies and treated in the same manner as the primary antibodies. DAPI (4=,6-di- amidino-2-phenylindole) diluted 1:1,000 was used to visualize the nuclei. Coverslips were mounted onto glass slides using 10 l of Fluoromount G mounting medium (catalog number 0100-01; Southern Biotech). A Nikon Eclipse TE2000-U fluorescence microscope was used for fluorescence microscopy. Images were viewed using a 60ϫ objective oil immersion lens. Five images of each sample were obtained, and a representative image of each sample is shown below. All images were subjected to fourline averaging. The images were processed through Nikon NIS-Elements AR Analysis (v3.2) software.
CellTiter Glo and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays. Wild-type and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) were infected with TrD at various MOIs for an hour and then washed with PBS, and the medium was replaced. Cell viability was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega CellTiter luminescent cell viability assay (catalog number G7571) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using a Beckman Coulter DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well. Similarly, caspase activation in infected wildtype and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was measured at 24 h postinfection using a Promega Caspase 3/7 Glo assay (catalog number G8090) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Luminescence was read using the DTX 880 multimode detector with an integration time of 100 ms per well.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers. The raw sequencing data for all RNA-Seq runs included in this work are publically available in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA300864 (http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA300864).
VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG astrocytes. VEEV replicates in vivo in monocytes, macrophages, neurons, and astrocytes (14) . Common cell lines used to study VEEV infection include Vero and BHK cells; in this study, U87MG astrocytes were chosen as an in vitro model due to their physiological relevance and greater clinical significance. Initial experiments were performed to characterize viral replication in U87MG cells. VEEV replication kinetics in U87MG cells were measured using plaque assays and by monitoring viral protein and RNA expression levels and the cytopathic effect (CPE) on the infected cells (Fig. 1) . Viral release was observed as early as 4 hpi, with ϳ4 log units of virus being observed, followed by a consistent increase in replication at 8 and 16 hpi (Fig. 1A) . Viral replication peaked at 16 hpi, and no additional increase in viral titers was observed at 24 hpi. Viral capsid expression followed a similar pattern, with protein being detected at 8 hpi and expression plateauing at 16 hpi (Fig. 1B) . Among infected U87MG cells, a significant CPE was observed by microscopy at 24 hpi, with little to no CPE being detected at 16 hpi (data not shown). Consistent with these observations, increased caspase 3/7 activity was observed only at 24 hpi (Fig. 1C) . On the basis of these data, times of 4, 8, and 16 hpi, reflecting the early, middle, and late stages of the viral life cycle, respectively, were selected for RNA-Seq analysis in order to provide a dynamic view of the host-pathogen transcriptome profile.
RNA sequencing analysis of VEEV-infected astrocytes. mRNA from triplicate sets of mock-and VEEV-infected U87MG cell cultures was isolated, purified at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, and used to prepare cDNA libraries for downstream RNA-Seq (see Materials and Methods). A high-level summary of the RNA-Seq results is shown in Table 1 . VEEV RNA samples were assayed by quantitative RT-PCR at each time point as a control to demonstrate the increasing viral RNA load over time (Fig. 1D) , consistent with the increasing number of RNA-Seq reads mapped to the VEEV genome at later time points (Table 1) .
For RNA-Seq analysis, individual genes were expressed as the number of reads per kilobase of the exon model per million mapped reads (RPKM) (19) . Log 2 -normalized RPKM expression values for each experimental sample are shown in Fig. 2A and can be found in Data Set S1 in the supplemental material. Minimal sample-to-sample variation in expression values within biological replicates was consistently detected (R 2 Ͼ 0.89 for all replicates; data not shown). In addition, intersample variation was also found to be minimal when it was tested pairwise across the entire experiment by using RPKM values for ERCC97 synthetic spike-in control RNAs (R 2 Ͼ 0.90 for all comparisons; data not shown).
As anticipated, two-component principal component analysis of the RNA-Seq data for mock-infected cells versus VEEV-infected cells showed a clear separation of the samples at 16 hpi from the samples at earlier time points (Fig. 2B) . However, the clustering of VEEV-infected samples with mock-infected samples at earlier time points suggested that the response to viral infection was limited to a narrow subset of early response genes, thus placing a higher burden of proof on identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) during the first few hours of infection. Along these lines, two orthogonal methods were used to identify DEGs suitable for further characterization: the edgeR method (21) and the method developed by Baggerly et al. (22) . Genes identified by one method were provisionally considered DEGs, and those identified by both methods were candidate DEGs to be confirmed by qRT-PCR. In addition to comparing individual gene expression values for mock-infected cells and VEEV-infected cells at each time point, gene expression values were also compared serially within each time series of VEEV-infected cells for genes that did not show any statistically significant changes in expression in mock-infected cells. A schematic of the comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 2C . The number of statistically significant DEGs identified by each of these comparisons is shown in Fig. 2D . Furthermore, k-means clustering (against normalized RPKM values) was employed to identify gross changes in gene expression over time for cohorts of genes potentially sharing the same pathway or regulatory triggers ( Fig. 3 ; see also Data Set S2 in the supplemental material). Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA; see Material and Methods and Data Set S3 in the supplemental material) was carried out on each kmeans cluster. In particular, cluster 20 (Table 2) was significantly enriched for genes involved in translational control, the type I interferon-mediated signaling pathway, and the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway (GSEA P value Ͻ 0.01). Although there is a well-established connection between translational control and UPR, a novel connection between UPR and the type I interferonmediated response in response to viral replication was suggested by pathway analysis (see Materials and Methods), implicating early growth response 1 (EGR1) as a potential bridge between these two pathways (Fig. 4) . EGR1 belongs to cluster 20 and is strongly induced during VEEV infection, and several other genes associated with the interferon response belong to the same cluster: IRF1, IFIT1, IFIT2, ISG15, and ILF3. EGR1 has been associated with increases in the expression of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) (28) , which is a key component of the UPR and which also belongs to cluster 20. This connection represented a potential a Biological process annotations obtained from Reactome for cluster 20. Reactome annotation identifiers are indicated for each annotation. Only traceable author submission (TAS)-classified annotations are considered. TAP, transporter associated with antigen processing; SRP, signal recognition particle. b Full set, the total number of genes in the genome with an annotated biological process; subset, total number of differentially expressed genes with an annotated biological process.
Network of type I interferon response-and UPR-related genes. Large circles, differentially expressed genes; small circles, genes with no significant change in expression; red circles, type I interferon response factors; yellow circles, genes regulating DNA transcription; blue circles, unfolded protein response genes; red lines, genes involved in physical protein-protein interactions; blue lines, genes involved in a common pathway. This network was seeded with k-means clusters 18 and 20, and many ribosomal protein genes were removed.
bridge between the UPR pathway and the interferon response pathway, with EGR1 being one of the potential key transcription factors driving this connection. Consequently, 15 genes from this analysis were selected for further characterization by qRT-PCR (see below): ATF3, activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), CEBPB, CEBPD, DDIT3/CHOP, EGR1, FOS, IFI6, IFIT1, IFIT2, IFIT3, ISG15, ISG20, JUN, and OASL. The expression values of these genes, as measured by RNA-Seq, are shown in Fig. 5A and B. Confirmatory qRT-PCR analysis indicated concordant gene expression ( Fig. 5C and D) . The interferon response genes induced are in agreement with those detected in previously published studies (11, 29, 30) , and these genes served as an internal positive control. Moreover, the link between EGR1 and the interferon pathway has been demonstrated; EGR1 is induced by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by IFN-␣, -, and -␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1 and the UPR pathway were selected for further analysis, as their role in VEEV infection has not been elucidated.
The RNA-Seq and pathway analysis data indicated that UPR and stress response genes were induced after VEEV infection. During an infection, host cells respond to cellular stresses resulting from increased viral protein translation and secretion by triggering the onset of the UPR pathway. The UPR pathway is an adaptive cellular response activated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress due to protein misfolding. In order to regulate cellular homeostasis during protein folding and secretion, the UPR pathway has developed three classes of sensors to ensure proper cellular regulation: inositolrequiring enzyme 1 (IRE1), protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase (PERK), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) (33, 34) . During VEEV infection, the PERK arm of the UPR appeared to be altered, as two critical regulators of this pathway were differentially expressed: ATF4 and CHOP (DDIT3) (35) . To determine if DEGs altered subsequent protein expression, Western blot analysis was performed for CHOP, ATF4, and phosphorylated eIF2␣ (p-eIF2␣). Tunicamycin, a glycosylation inhibitor and inducer of UPR (36) , was included as a positive control. A time course analysis of U87MG cells treated with 1 M tunicamycin indicated that 8 h of treatment provided the most robust induction of UPR proteins (data not shown). VEEV-infected but not mock-infected or UV-inactivated VEEV (UV-VEEV)-infected cells displayed a dramatic increase in p-eIF2␣ expression and a modest but consistent increase in CHOP and ATF4 expression at 16 hpi (Fig. 6A) . No change in protein expression was observed at 4 hpi (data not shown). Confocal microscopy confirmed CHOP and ATF4 up- regulation, demonstrating a more robust and nuclear staining pattern in VEEV-infected cells than in mock-infected cells (Fig. 6C to E). While ATF4 protein expression levels increased, ATF4 mRNA abundances decreased following VEEV infection ( Fig. 5B and D). These results are consistent with the observation that ATF4 expression is regulated at the translational level upon UPR induction (37) . As eIF2␣ can be phosphorylated by multiple kinases (PERK, protein kinase double-stranded RNA dependent [PKR], general control nonderepressible-2 [GCN2], and hemeregulated inhibitor [HRI]) (38) , the PERK inhibitor (PERKi) GSK2606414 was used to determine if the observed phosphorylation was PERK dependent. Treatment of VEEV-infected cells with PERKi resulted in a marked decrease in eIF2␣ phosphorylation (Fig. 6B) . These results indicate that PERK contributes to eIF2␣ phosphorylation but that there is likely an additional kinase contributing to the phosphorylation event. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PERK arm of the UPR pathway is induced at later time points following VEEV infection.
EGR1 is upregulated in infected cells and localizes to the nucleus. EGR1 is a transcription factor that can be induced by numerous signals, including oxidative stress, hypoxemia, and growth factors (39, 40) . It can also be activated upon infection by both DNA and RNA viruses, including Epstein-Barr virus, mouse hepatitis virus, murine coronavirus, and Japanese encephalitis virus (41) (42) (43) . Treatment of MEFs with the UPR activator thapsigargin has been shown to induce EGR1 expression in a PERK-dependent manner (44) . Given the link between EGR1 and UPR and the robust induction of EGR1 mRNA expression following VEEV infection ( Fig. 4 and 5) , EGR1 was chosen for further study. EGR1 protein expression after VEEV infection was analyzed by Western blot analysis. As previous studies have indicated that EGR1 can be activated by mouse hepatitis virus independently of virus replication (likely due to cellular membrane disruption following entry) (41), a UV-inactivated virus control (UV-VEEV) was included. EGR1 protein levels were increased following VEEV infection compared to those in mock-infected cells and UV-VEEV-infected cells (Fig. 7A; compare lanes 3, 6, and 9 ). The most dramatic upregulation of EGR1 occurred at 16 hpi; this correlates with the highest levels of VEEV capsid production (Fig. 1B) . Following induction, EGR1 has been shown to translocate to the nucleus to induce gene expression through binding to the Egr binding sequence (EBS) [GCG(G/T)GGCG] (40, 45) . Confocal microcopy revealed high levels of EGR1 in the nuclei of infected cells, whereas only low levels of both nuclear and cytoplasmic EGR1 were detected in mock-infected cells (Fig. 7B) . PERKi treatment of VEEV-infected cells resulted in a complete loss of EGR1 induction (Fig. 7C) , indicating that EGR1 was induced in a PERK-dependent fashion. These results demonstrate that EGR1 protein levels and nuclear localization are increased following VEEV infection and that the induction of EGR1 is dependent on PERK.
The loss of EGR1 inhibits VEEV-induced apoptosis but does not alter VEEV replication kinetics. As EGR1 influences cell survival and apoptosis (46) , the impact of EGR1 on VEEV-induced cell death was assessed. Caspase 3 cleavage was observed in WT MEFs at 24 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 0.5 and started as early as 16 hpi when they were infected at an MOI of 5 (Fig. 8A ). In contrast, EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells showed little to no detectable caspase cleavage following infection with VEEV. Two sets of experiments were performed to quantitatively confirm these results: CellTiter Glo assays to measure total cell viability (ATP production) and Caspase 3/7 Glo assays to measure caspase 3/7 activity. Both WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs displayed dose-dependent decreases in cell viability following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells having significantly more viable cells at each MOI examined (Fig. 8B) . Concordantly, a dose-dependent increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed following VEEV infection, with EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells demonstrating reduced caspase 3 activity at MOIs of 0.5 and 5 (Fig. 8C) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1 (Fig. 8D) . EGR1 has been shown to negatively regulate the transcription of BIRC5 (survivin), an inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) family member (47) . RNA-Seq data indicated that BIRC5 gene expression was decreased following VEEV infection: log 2 -transformed fold change values of normalized gene expression were Ϫ1.16, Ϫ1.18, and Ϫ1.50 at 4, 8, and 16 hpi, respectively (see Table S1 in the supplemental material and NCBI BioProject accession number PRJNA300864). WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs were used to determine if EGR1 influenced BIRC5 gene expression following VEEV infection. BIRC5 expression was significantly decreased at 16 hpi in VEEV-infected WT MEFs, but this reduction was not observed in VEEV-infected EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs (Fig. 8E) . Ex-pression of the gene for the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), another IAP family member, was not significantly differentially altered after infection (data not shown). Collectively, these results demonstrate that EGR1 contributes to VEEV-induced apoptosis.
VEEV replication kinetics were determined for both EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs to determine the relevance of EGR1 in viral replication. Cells were infected at two different MOIs (0.5 and 5), and viral supernatants were collected at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hpi and analyzed by plaque assay. The replication kinetics were similar between EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs at both MOIs, with titers peaking at 16 hpi (Fig. 9A) . A lack of EGR1 expression was confirmed by Western blotting (Fig. 9B) . These results were replicated in U87MG cells transfected with siRNA targeting EGR1. Transfection of siRNA targeting EGR1 resulted in a Ͼ90% decrease in EGR1 protein expression (Fig. 9D ) without any significant effect on viral replication (Fig. 9C) . These results suggest that the decrease in apoptosis observed in EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs was not due to altered VEEV replication kinetics.
Despite being recognized as an emerging threat, relatively little is known about the virulence mechanisms of alphaviruses, largely due to a knowledge gap in the host-pathogen interactome. VEEV infection often results in fatal encephalitis and is known to inhibit both cellular transcription and translation in order to downregulate the innate immune response (1, 48) . In contrast, in the CNS VEEV has been shown to upregulate numerous genes in both the inflammatory response and apoptotic pathways (1, 48) . Specifically, numerous proinflammatory cytokines, including interleu-kin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-12, glycogen synthase kinase 3, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-␣), have all been shown to play a role in VEEV pathogenesis (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) . The use of high-throughput next-generation sequencing technologies, such as RNA-Seq, allows an in-depth and unbiased look into the virus-host transcriptome, thus enabling changes in the expression of specific mRNAs to be connected with phenotypic outcomes. To this end, identification of critical differentially expressed transcripts among clinically relevant infected cells will help lead to a greater understanding of viral pathogenesis and may prove beneficial for the identification of therapeutic targets.
In this study, network analysis/RNA-Seq data and the results of protein expression studies revealed that VEEV infection resulted in activation of the PERK arm of the UPR pathway, including the activation of ATF4, CHOP, and eIF2␣ phosphorylation. Several alphaviruses have previously been reported to hijack key components of the UPR pathway in order to promote viral replication, as the reliance of enveloped viruses on the ER for the synthesis of viral envelope-associated glycoproteins and their transport to the plasma membrane often stresses the ER due to rapid viral protein production (54, 55) . Modulation of the UPR is not unique to alphaviruses; rather, it is a shared trait of many positive-sense RNA viruses. Dengue virus has been shown to suppress PERK by inhibiting continued eIF2␣ phosphorylation in order to inhibit immediate apoptosis, increasing viral protein translation and extending the length of productive viral replication (34) . Studies with hepatitis E virus (HEV) have demonstrated that expression of HEV capsid protein open reading frame 2 (ORF2) activates the expression of CHOP and ATF4 (56) . In HEV, ORF2 was shown to stimulate CHOP through both ER stressors and amino acid response elements (AARE) through interaction with ATF4 (56) .
The results shown here indicate that during VEEV infection, initiation of the UPR pathway and subsequent activation of EGR1 play a role in the outcome of virus-induced apoptosis. During the initial detection of ER stress, PERK is able to identify misfolded proteins in the lumen of the ER and phosphorylates eIF2␣ in order to initiate prosurvival pathways in the UPR through the general At 24 hpi caspase 3/7 activity was analyzed using the Caspase 3/7 Glo assay. The fold change values for mock-infected cells were set to a value of 1. **, P Ͻ 0.001. (E) EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ and WT MEFs were mock or VEEV infected (MOI, 5). RNA was prepared, and gene expression was determined by qRT-PCR using a TaqMan assays for BIRC5 (survivin). The data shown are the values of the fold change of normalized gene expression determined by the ⌬⌬C T threshold cycle (C T ) method. *, P Ͻ 0.005 (comparison of VEEV-infected WT and EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ cells). inhibition of protein synthesis (33, 34) . VEEV appears to induce the UPR and promote increased eIF2␣ phosphorylation, which results in the translational inhibition of most mRNAs, while UPR selectively increases the translation of ATF4. ATF4 is responsible for the expression of genes that encode proteins involved in apoptosis, redox processes, amino acid metabolism, and ER chaperone recruitment and is a well-known mediator of the PERK pathway and CHOP (33, 34) . CHOP activation facilitates the increased expression of cellular chaperones in order to counteract the buildup of misfolded proteins (57) . Failure to suppress protein misfolding in persistently stressed cells, such as during a viral infection, can then result in activation of the proapoptotic transcription factor CHOP, leading to suppression of the antiapoptotic protein B cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2). CHOP can also function as a prosurvival transcription factor by dephosphorylating eIF2␣ through activation of the DNA damage-inducible protein (GADD34) in a self-regulating feedback look (33, 34) . However, the data presented here support a model whereby VEEV infection leads CHOP to function in its proapoptotic role, as no change in GADD34 gene expression was detected by RNA-Seq analysis.
While the UPR was induced following VEEV infection, robust activation was not observed until later time points after infection. This is somewhat surprising, as VEEV infection is expected to induce significant ER stress due to the massive production of viral proteins during the course of an acute robust infection. The structural proteins of VEEV are translated from the viral subgenomic RNA into polyproteins on the rough ER. The E1 and pE2 precur-sor glycoproteins are then assembled as heterodimers in the ER, undergoing conformational changes requiring numerous chaperones (1, 58) . It is possible that VEEV has developed mechanisms to subvert the induction of the UPR. In order to counteract the UPR, the nonstructural proteins (nsPs) of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) have been shown to inhibit expression of ATF4 and other known UPR target genes, including GRP78/BiP, GRP94, and CHOP (59) . Through nsP activity, CHIKV has developed a means of suppressing the UPR activity resulting from viral glycoprotein-induced ER stress, thus preventing immediate autophagy and apoptotic activation. The VEEV capsid is responsible for interfering with nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and inhibiting rRNA and mRNA transcription and has been implicated in the regulation of type I IFN signaling and the antiviral response through the regulation of both viral RNA and protein production (1, 48, 60) . Therefore, we hypothesize that the ability of the VEEV capsid to inhibit cellular transcription and block nucleocytoplasmic trafficking results in delayed induction of the UPR.
The results of a detailed network analysis based on existing data in the literature, coupled with the temporal gene expression profiles obtained from this study, point toward EGR1 being an important node in the novel link between VEEV activation of the type I interferon response and UPR. EGR1 is known to form a DNA binding complex with C/EBPB, a critical dimerization partner of CHOP (61) . Previous studies have demonstrated that the nuclear localization of CHOP may act as an inducer of EGR1 and that CHOP may act as a transcriptional cofactor for regulation of C/EBPB-EGR1 target genes (61) . The results of the Western blot and microscopy analysis presented in this study support this model, as VEEV infection was found to increase both the overall levels and the nuclear distribution of CHOP along with those of EGR1. Previous studies demonstrated EGR1 mRNA induction by IFN-␥ in mouse fibroblasts and by TNF-␣, TNF-, IL-1, IFN-␣, IFN-, and IFN-␥ in human fibroblasts (31, 32) . EGR1, also known as Zif268 and NGF1-A, is a zinc finger protein and mammalian transcription factor. It has been implicated in cellular proliferation and differentiation, but it may also have proapoptotic functions, depending on the cell type and stimulus (62) . Of particular interest, EGR1 directly controls proliferation when activated by the mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway in mitogen-stimulated astrocytes (63) . Virus-induced changes in EGR1 expression have been observed in several in vitro systems. In HIV-1-infected astrocytes, EGR1 upregulation was found to be induced by Tat through transactivation of the EGR1 promoter, leading to cellular dysfunction and Tat-induced neurotoxicity (64) . Increased amounts of EGR1 mRNA have also been demonstrated to act in a region-specific manner, corresponding temporally with viral RNA production in the brain tissues of rats infected with either rabies virus or Borna disease virus (65) .
In summary, the current study demonstrates a potential link between UPR activation and EGR1. EGR1 Ϫ/Ϫ MEFs demonstrated lower levels of susceptibility to VEEV-induced cell death than wild-type MEFs, indicating that EGR1 modulates proapoptotic pathways following infection. Studies are under way to determine if alteration of the UPR through small molecule inhibitors or siRNA interference influences VEEV replication and/or cell death. To date the mechanisms underlying VEEV pathogenesis and subsequent neuronal degeneration have been only partially elucidated. Therefore, determining the role of EGR1 and UPR may play a significant role in the development of a novel therapeutic target resulting in decreased neuronal death and the subsequent neuronal sequelae that result from infection. | What is EGR1? | 943 | a transcription factor | 33,378 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What work has been carried out this study? | 3,617 | A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. | 1,035 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How many confirmed cases were identified in February 2020? | 3,618 | 25,000 | 2,531 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was the case fatality rate? | 3,619 | 2% | 2,638 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Who are the majority of cases? | 3,620 | males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market | 2,775 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are the symptoms at the onset? | 3,621 | fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. | 2,947 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What type of virus is 2019-nCOV? | 3,622 | betacoronavirus | 3,161 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What clade does it belong to? | 3,623 | forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily | 3,177 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What other betacoronaviruses are zoonotic in origin? | 3,624 | The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) | 3,267 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How does the pathogenicity of 2019-nCOV compare with other viruses? | 3,625 | Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) | 3,552 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How does the transmissibility of 2019-nCOV compare with other viruses? | 3,626 | 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) | 3,703 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Which electronic databases were used for this study? | 3,627 | PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library | 4,516 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was the purpose of the search? | 3,628 | to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. | 4,552 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What topics were searched for? | 3,629 | randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. | 5,573 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What studies were excluded? | 3,630 | Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV | 6,235 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What did the searches yield? | 3,631 | A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles. | 6,375 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain? | 3,632 | real time RT-PCR | 6,978 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are roles of the period and type of specimens? | 3,633 | It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms. | 7,413 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are some of the other diagnostic methods? | 3,634 | reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. | 7,770 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How does RT-LAMP compare with other methods? | 3,635 | RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. | 7,942 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How do RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR compare with other methods? | 3,636 | have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. | 8,186 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Why is RT-PCR not the best method sometimes? | 3,637 | high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity | 8,432 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What did the comparison between the molecular test and serological test show? | 3,638 | that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. | 8,800 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What enhancements to the molecular tests were looked at? | 3,639 | Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity | 8,956 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the threshold sensitivity of Real time PCR? | 3,640 | 10 genome equivalents per reaction | 10,010 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How is the reproducibility of real time PCR? | 3,641 | has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. | 10,052 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are potential vaccines based on? | 3,642 | messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) | 10,922 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Which kit is currently used in China? | 3,643 | kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China | 11,200 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Why were only four studies included? | 3,644 | Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models | 11,532 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Which four studies were included? | 3,645 | Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines | 11,692 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is te safety of the vaccines? | 3,646 | All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, | 12,005 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was the performance of the vaccine candidates? | 3,647 | well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants | 12,073 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How many clinical trials are registered? | 3,648 | nine | 12,796 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the status of the nine trials? | 3,649 | five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients | 12,966 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are the results on seroconversion? | 3,650 | Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. | 13,335 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What were the results on antibodies? | 3,651 | Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. | 13,511 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What were the T-cell responses? | 3,652 | detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. | 13,699 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What were the differences in immune responses? | 3,653 | no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60 | 13,783 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the observed benefit of the molecules? | 3,654 | Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. | 13,976 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the ongoing randomized trial investigating? | 3,655 | It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. | 15,743 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are the many prospective and restrospective studies conducted on? | 3,656 | usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. | 15,917 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was the result of the phase 1 trial of IgG immunoglobin? | 3,657 | The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. | 16,227 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What role rapid diagnostics plays? | 3,658 | enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home | 16,735 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What other measures rapid diagnostics facilitates? | 3,659 | specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination | 17,027 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are ways to perform laboratory diagnostics? | 3,660 | (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles. | 17,267 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are key limtations of genetic detection? | 3,661 | lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. | 17,594 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is a key limitation of serological testing? | 3,662 | the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. | 17,837 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the limitation in virus testing? | 3,663 | the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. | 18,142 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was the result of the treatment? | 3,664 | Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. | 18,272 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What superiority did the treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment have compared with using control treatment alone? | 3,665 | in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course | 18,611 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What was a characteristic of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates? | 3,666 | have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. | 19,303 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How do severe cases compare with mild cases? | 3,667 | viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases | 19,400 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What is the disadvantage of upper respiratory tract specimens? | 3,668 | hey have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases. | 19,603 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What are the existing practices in detecting genetic material of viruses? | 3,669 | (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . | 19,881 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Why are Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis? | 3,670 | it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection | 20,181 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | Where was the first validated diagnostic test designed? | 3,671 | in Germany | 20,755 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How were the assays selected ? | 3,672 | based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. | 21,000 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | How were the assays used? | 3,673 | Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. | 21,080 |
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What were the results? | 3,674 | All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses | 21,267 |
Subsets and Splits