Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS Pathog ; 17(9): e1009918, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622376

ABSTRACT

Under RNA virus infection, retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) in host cells recognizes viral RNA and activates the expression of type I IFN. To investigate the roles of protein methyltransferases and demethylases in RIG-I antiviral signaling pathway, we screened all the known related enzymes with a siRNA library and identified LSD1 as a positive regulator for RIG-I signaling. Exogenous expression of LSD1 enhances RIG-I signaling activated by virus stimulation, whereas its deficiency restricts it. LSD1 interacts with RIG-I, promotes its K63-linked polyubiquitination and interaction with VISA/MAVS. Interestingly, LSD1 exerts its function in antiviral response not dependent on its demethylase activity but through enhancing the interaction between RIG-I with E3 ligases, especially TRIM25. Furthermore, we provide in vivo evidence that LSD1 increases antiviral gene expression and inhibits viral replication. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that LSD1 is a positive regulator of signaling pathway triggered by RNA-virus through mediating RIG-I polyubiquitination.


Subject(s)
Gene Expression Regulation/physiology , Histone Demethylases/metabolism , RNA Virus Infections/metabolism , Receptors, Cell Surface/metabolism , Animals , Chlorocebus aethiops , HEK293 Cells , Humans , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Ubiquitination , Vero Cells
2.
Front Pharmacol ; 12: 683296, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430716

ABSTRACT

Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: -0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014). Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL