Transient loss and recovery of oral chemesthesis, taste and smell with COVID-19 (preprint)

Anosmia is common with respiratory virus infections, but loss of taste or chemesthesis is rare. Reports of true taste loss with COVID-19 were viewed skeptically until confirmed by multiple studies. Nasal menthol thresholds are elevated in some with prior COVID-19 infections, but data on oral chemesthesis are lacking. Many patients recover quickly, but precise timing and synchrony of recovery are unclear. Here, we collected broad sensory measures over 28 days, recruiting adults (18-45 years) who were COVID-19 positive or recently exposed (close contacts per U.S. CDC criteria at the time of the study) in the first half of 2021. Participants received nose clips, red commercial jellybeans (Sour Cherry and Cinnamon), and scratch-n-sniff cards (ScentCheckPro). Among COVID-19 cases who entered the study on or before Day 10 of infection, Gaussian Process Regression showed odor identification and odor intensity (two distinct measures of function) each declined relative to controls (close contacts who never developed COVID-19), but effects were larger for intensity than identification. To assess changes during early onset, we identified four COVID-19 cases who enrolled on or prior to Day 1 of their illness: this allowed for visualization of baseline ratings, loss, and recovery of function over time. Four controls were matched for age, gender, and race. Variables included sourness and sweetness (Sour Cherry jellybeans), oral burn (Cinnamon jellybeans), mean orthonasal intensity of four odors (ScentCheckPro), and perceived nasal blockage. Data were plotted over 28 days, creating panel plots for the eight cases and controls. Controls exhibited stable ratings over time. By contrast, COVID-19 cases showed sharp deviations over time. No single pattern of taste loss or recovery was apparent, implying different taste qualities might recover at different rates. Oral burn was transiently reduced for some before recovering quickly, suggesting acute loss may be missed in data collected after acute illness ends. Changes in odor intensity or odor identification were not explained by nasal blockage. Collectively, intensive daily testing shows orthonasal smell, oral chemesthesis and taste were each altered by acute COVID-19 infection, and this disruption was dyssynchronous for different modalities, with variable loss and recovery rates across modalities and individuals.

A Quantitative Evaluation of COVID-19 Epidemiological Models (preprint)

Quantifying how accurate epidemiological models of COVID-19 forecast the number of future cases and deaths can help frame how to incorporate mathematical models to inform public health decisions. Here we analyze and score the predictive ability of publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological models on the COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Our score uses the posted forecast cumulative distributions to compute the log-likelihood for held-out COVID-19 positive cases and deaths. Scores are updated continuously as new data become available, and model performance is tracked over time. We use model scores to construct ensemble models based on past performance. Our publicly available quantitative framework may aid in improving modeling frameworks, and assist policy makers in selecting modeling paradigms to balance the delicate trade-offs between the economy and public health.

COVID-19 reopening strategies at the county level in the face of uncertainty: Multiple Models for Outbreak Decision Support (preprint)

Policymakers make decisions about COVID-19 management in the face of considerable uncertainty. We convened multiple modeling teams to evaluate reopening strategies for a mid-sized county in the United States, in a novel process designed to fully express scientific uncertainty while reducing linguistic uncertainty and cognitive biases. For the scenarios considered, the consensus from 17 distinct models was that a second outbreak will occur within 6 months of reopening, unless schools and non-essential workplaces remain closed. Up to half the population could be infected with full workplace reopening; non-essential business closures reduced median cumulative infections by 82%. Intermediate reopening interventions identified no win-win situations; there was a trade-off between public health outcomes and duration of workplace closures. Aggregate results captured twice the uncertainty of individual models, providing a more complete expression of risk for decision-making purposes.

The N-terminal domain of spike glycoprotein mediates SARS-CoV-2 infection by associating with L-SIGN and DC-SIGN (preprint)

The widespread occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 has had a profound effect on society and a vaccine is currently being developed. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the primary host cell receptor that interacts with the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Although pneumonia is the main symptom in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the expression levels of ACE2 in the lung is low, suggesting the presence of another receptor for the spike protein. In order to identify the additional receptors for the spike protein, we screened a receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from the lung cDNA library. We cloned L-SIGN as a specific receptor for the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The RBD of the spike protein did not bind to L-SIGN. In addition, not only L-SIGN but also DC-SIGN, a closely related C-type lectin receptor to L-SIGN, bound to the NTD of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Importantly, cells expressing L-SIGN and DC-SIGN were both infected by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, L-SIGN and DC-SIGN induced membrane fusion by associating with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Serum antibodies from infected patients and a patient-derived monoclonal antibody against NTD inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection of L-SIGN or DC-SIGN expressing cells. Our results highlight the important role of NTD in SARS-CoV-2 dissemination through L-SIGN and DC-SIGN and the significance of having anti-NTD neutralizing antibodies in antibody-based therapeutics.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 infection in two non-human primate species: rhesus and cynomolgus macaques (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that sparked the current COVID-19 pandemic. To stop the shattering effect of COVID-19, effective and safe vaccines, and antiviral therapies are urgently needed. To facilitate the preclinical evaluation of intervention approaches, relevant animal models need to be developed and validated. Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) are widely used in biomedical research and serve as models for SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, differences in study design make it difficult to compare and understand potential species-related differences. Here, we directly compared the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the two genetically closely-related macaque species. After inoculation with a low passage SARS-CoV-2 isolate, clinical, virological, and immunological characteristics were monitored. Both species showed slightly elevated body temperatures in the first days after exposure while a decrease in physical activity was only observed in the rhesus macaques and not in cynomolgus macaques. The virus was quantified in tracheal, nasal, and anal swabs, and in blood samples by qRT-PCR, and showed high similarity between the two species. Immunoglobulins were detected by various enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and showed seroconversion in all animals by day 10 post-infection. The cytokine responses were highly comparable between species and computed tomography (CT) imaging revealed pulmonary lesions in all animals. Consequently, we concluded that both rhesus and cynomolgus macaques represent valid models for evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral candidates in a preclinical setting.

A Workflow of Integrated Resources to Catalyze Network Pharmacology Driven COVID-19 Research (preprint)

Motivation: In the event of an outbreak due to an emerging pathogen, time is of the essence to contain or to mitigate the spread of the disease. Drug repositioning is one of the strategies that has the potential to deliver therapeutics relatively quickly. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has shown that integrating critical data resources to drive drug-repositioning studies, involving host-host, host-pathogen and drug-target interactions, remains a time-consuming effort that translates to a delay in the development and delivery of a life-saving therapy. Results: Here, we describe a workflow we designed for a semi-automated integration of rapidly emerging datasets that can be generally adopted in a broad network pharmacology research setting. The workflow was used to construct a COVID-19 focused multimodal network that integrates 487 host-pathogen, 74,805 host-host protein and 1,265 drug-target interactions. The resultant Neo4j graph database named "Neo4COVID19" is accessible via a web interface and via API calls based on the Bolt protocol. We believe that our Neo4COVID19 database will be a valuable asset to the research community and will catalyze the discovery of therapeutics to fight COVID-19. Availability: https://neo4covid19.ncats.io . Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, network pharmacology, graph database, Neo4j, data integration, drug repositioning

Recent smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19: a preregistered, cross-sectional study (preprint)

Background: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. Methods: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Results: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean{+/-}SD, C19+: -82.5{+/-}27.2 points; C19-: -59.8{+/-}37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. Conclusions: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings [≤]2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10

More than just smell - COVID-19 is associated with severe impairment of smell, taste, and chemesthesis (preprint)

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, generally lacked quantitative measurements, were mostly restricted to data from single countries. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change+/-100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7+/- 28.7, mean+/- SD), taste (-69.0+/- 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3+/- 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Global prediction of unreported SARS-CoV2 infection from observed COVID-19 cases (preprint)

Summary: Estimation of infectiousness and fatality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the COVID-19 global pandemic is complicated by ascertainment bias resulting from incomplete and non-representative samples of infected individuals. We developed a strategy for overcoming this bias to obtain more plausible estimates of the true values of key epidemiological variables. We fit mechanistic Bayesian latent-variable SIR models to confirmed COVID-19 cases, deaths, and recoveries, for all regions (countries and US states) independently. Bayesian averaging over models, we find that the raw infection incidence rate underestimates the true rate by a factor, the case ascertainment ratio CARt that depends upon region, and show how CARt changes over time. At the regional onset of COVID-19, the predicted global median for each case confirmed was 13 infections unreported (CARt = 0.07 C.I. (0.02, 0.4)). As the infection spread, the median CARt rose to 9 unreported cases for every one diagnosed as of April 15, 2020 (CARt = 0.1 C.I. (0.02, 0.5)). We also estimate that the median global initial reproduction number R0 is 3.3 (C.I (1.5, 8.3)) and the total infection fatality rate near the onset is 0.17% (C.I. (0.05%, 0.9%)). However the time-dependent reproduction number Rt and infection fatality rate as of April 15 were 1.2 (C.I. (0.6, 2.5)) and 0.8% (C.I. (0.2%,4%)), respectively. We find that there is great variability between country- and state-level values. Our estimates are consistent with recent serological estimates of cumulative infections for the state of New York, but inconsistent with claims that very large fractions of the population have already been infected in most other regions. For most regions, our estimates imply a great deal of uncertainty about the current state and trajectory of the epidemic.