Evidence For and Against Direct Kidney Infection by SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19.

Despite evidence of multiorgan tropism of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), direct viral kidney invasion has been difficult to demonstrate. The question of whether SARS-CoV2 can directly infect the kidney is relevant to the understanding of pathogenesis of AKI and collapsing glomerulopathy in patients with COVID-19. Methodologies to document SARS-CoV-2 infection that have been used include immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, and electron microscopy. In our review of studies to date, we found that SARS-CoV-2 in the kidneys of patients with COVID-19 was detected in 18 of 94 (19%) by immunohistochemistry, 71 of 144 (49%) by RT-PCR, and 11 of 84 (13%) by in situ hybridization. In a smaller number of patients with COVID-19 examined by immunofluorescence, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 10 of 13 (77%). In total, in kidneys from 102 of 235 patients (43%), the presence of SARS-CoV-2 was suggested by at least one of the methods used. Despite these positive findings, caution is needed because many other studies have been negative for SARS-CoV-2 and it should be noted that when detected, it was only in kidneys obtained at autopsy. There is a clear need for studies from kidney biopsies, including those performed at early stages of the COVID-19-associated kidney disease. Development of tests to detect kidney viral infection in urine samples would be more practical as a noninvasive way to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection during the evolution of COVID-19-associated kidney disease.

Rapid Adaptation and Remote Delivery of Undergraduate Research Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

When COVID-19 caused worldwide cancellations of summer research immersion programs in 2020, Mayo Clinic rallied to create an alternate virtual experience called Summer Foundations in Research (SFIR). SFIR was designed not only to ensure the continuance of science pathways training for undergraduate scientists but also to support undergraduate mental wellbeing, given the known pandemic stressors. A total of 170 participants took part in the program and were surveyed pre-post for outcomes in biomedical research career knowledge, biomedical research career interest, research skills confidence, and three dimensions of mental wellbeing. Knowledge of and interest in careers involving biomedical research rose significantly following participation in SFIR. The participants' mean research skills confidence also rose between 0.08 and 1.32 points on a 7-point scale across 12 items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory. Success in science pathways support was accompanied by positive shifts in participant mental wellbeing. Measurable decreases in stress (Perceived Stress Scale, p < 0.0001) accompanied gains in resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, p < 0.0001) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale, p = 0.0005). Collectively, the data suggest that core objectives of traditional in-person summer research programming can be accomplished virtually and that these programs can simultaneously impact student wellbeing. This theoretical framework is particularly salient during COVID-19, but the increased accessibility of virtual programs such as SFIR can continue to bolster science education pathways long after the pandemic is gone.