A higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population in Brazil.

The historical and social vulnerability of quilombola communities in Brazil can make them especially fragile in the face of COVID-19, considering that several individuals have precarious health systems and inadequate access to water. This work aimed to characterize the frequency of SARS-COV-2 infections and the presence of IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in quilombola populations and their relationship with the presence of risk factors or preexisting chronic diseases in the quilombola communities. We analyzed the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, serological status, comorbidities, and symptoms of 1,994 individuals (478 males and 1,536 females) from 18 Brazilian municipalities in the State of Sergipe of quilombola communities, which were evaluated at different epidemiological weeks, starting at the 32nd (August 6th) and ending at the 40th (October 3rd) epidemiological week. More than 70% of studied families live in rural areas and they have an extreme poverty social status. Although we found a higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population, their SARS-CoV-2 reactivity and IgM and IgG positivity varied across the communities investigated. Arterial hypertension was the most risk factor, being found in 27.8% of the individuals (9.5% in stage 1, 10.8% in stage 2, and 7.5% in stage 3). The most common COVID-19 symptoms and comorbidities were headache, runny nose, flu, and dyslipidemia. However, most individuals were asymptomatic (79.9%). Our data indicate that mass testing must be incorporated into public policy to improve the health care system available to quilombola populations during a future pandemic or epidemic.

Integrative transcriptome analysis of SARS-CoV-2 human-infected cells combined with deep learning algorithms identifies two potential cellular targets for the treatment of coronavirus disease.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread worldwide, leading coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to hit pandemic level less than 4 months after the first official cases. Hence, the search for drugs and vaccines that could prevent or treat infections by SARS-CoV-2 began, intending to reduce a possible collapse of health systems. After 2 years, efforts to find therapies to treat COVID-19 continue. However, there is still much to be understood about the virus' pathology. Tools such as transcriptomics have been used to understand the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on different cells isolated from various tissues, leaving datasets in the databases that integrate genes and differentially expressed pathways during SARS-CoV-2 infection. After retrieving transcriptome datasets from different human cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 available in the database, we performed an integrative analysis associated with deep learning algorithms to determine differentially expressed targets mainly after infection. The targets found represented a fructose transporter (GLUT5) and a component of proteasome 26s. These targets were then molecularly modeled, followed by molecular docking that identified potential inhibitors for both structures. Once the inhibition of structures that have the expression increased by the virus can represent a strategy for reducing the viral replication by selecting infected cells, associating these bioinformatics tools, therefore, can be helpful in the screening of molecules being tested for new uses, saving financial resources, time, and making a personalized screening for each infectious disease.

Update on Rapid Diagnostics for COVID-19: A Systematic Review

An accurate and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is an effective strategy for pandemic control, allowing disease screening and timely therapeutic intervention. We analyzed scientific reports about rapid tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 to assess their reliability parameters. Medical Subject Headings terms or keywords related to point-of-care and rapid diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 were searched in data published from November 2020 to November 2021 in PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Notable differences were observed in sensitivity among direct tests that used different samples, and good accuracy was reported in a significant number of studies (>80%). Pediatric samples and samples with high Ct values (RT-PCR) had suboptimal sensitivity (range 45.4% to 66%). Further, a lack of sensitivity (<46.2%) was observed in point-of-care tests and in rapid diagnostic tests for antibody detection in the first days after infection, with increasing values in postinfection analysis (>60%). For serological detection of IgM or Antigen rapid diagnostic tests, no cross-reactivity was found with other coronaviruses. Therefore, although these tests are very important in facing the pandemic, they still need to be improved to test cross-reactivity against other pathogens, especially against other coronaviruses.

Rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global health threat and remains a challenge for modern medicine. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 is vital for proper disease and outbreak management. Our review aimed to analyze scientific articles published in the literature addressing the rapid tests available for COVID-19 diagnosis at the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: A systematic review was performed from October 22 to 27, 2020, searching data published in PubMed and Google Scholar databases, using subject headings or keywords related to point of care and rapid test diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. RESULTS: The first survey identified 403 articles, but only 23 met the defined criteria for the systematic analysis. The sensitivity and specificity parameters were assessed in 19 studies, and the data suggested that there was lower sensitivity in the period 1 to 7 days after the emergence of symptoms (∼38%) higher sensitivity at 8 to 14 days (∼90%), and the highest at 15 to 39 days (∼98%). Accuracy was reported in six studies, reporting values above 50%. Only three studies reported a possible cross-reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the rapid tests used in the first year of the pandemic were tested with a small number of samples and not adequately validated. And the studies that described them were conducted with little scientific rigor.

SARS-CoV-2 mutations and where to find them: an in silico perspective of structural changes and antigenicity of the spike protein.

Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.