Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(6)2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34073382

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic, there was no doubt that vaccination is the ideal protocol to tackle it. Within a year, a few COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and authorized. This unparalleled initiative in developing vaccines created many uncertainties looming around the efficacy and safety of these vaccines. This study aimed to assess the side effects and perceptions following COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing an online survey targeted toward Jordan inhabitants who received any COVID-19 vaccines. Data were statistically analyzed and certain machine learning (ML) tools, including multilayer perceptron (MLP), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and K-star were used to predict the severity of side effects. RESULTS: A total of 2213 participants were involved in the study after receiving Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, and other vaccines (38.2%, 31%, 27.3%, and 3.5%, respectively). Generally, most of the post-vaccination side effects were common and non-life-threatening (e.g., fatigue, chills, dizziness, fever, headache, joint pain, and myalgia). Only 10% of participants suffered from severe side effects; while 39% and 21% of participants had moderate and mild side effects, respectively. Despite the substantial variations between these vaccines in the presence and severity of side effects, the statistical analysis indicated that these vaccines might provide the same protection against COVID-19 infection. Finally, around 52.9% of participants suffered before vaccination from vaccine hesitancy and anxiety; while after vaccination, 95.5% of participants have advised others to get vaccinated, 80% felt more reassured, and 67% believed that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in the long term. Furthermore, based on the type of vaccine, demographic data, and side effects, the RF, XGBoost, and MLP gave both high accuracies (0.80, 0.79, and 0.70, respectively) and Cohen's kappa values (0.71, 0.70, and 0.56, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirmed that the authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and getting vaccinated makes people more reassured. Most of the post-vaccination side effects are mild to moderate, which are signs that body's immune system is building protection. ML can also be used to predict the severity of side effects based on the input data; predicted severe cases may require more medical attention or even hospitalization.

2.
Cells ; 9(12)2020 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33302501

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has recently emerged in China and caused a disease called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus quickly spread around the world, causing a sustained global outbreak. Although SARS-CoV-2, and other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome CoV (MERS-CoV) are highly similar genetically and at the protein production level, there are significant differences between them. Research has shown that the structural spike (S) protein plays an important role in the evolution and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. So far, studies have shown that various genes encoding primarily for elements of S protein undergo frequent mutation. We have performed an in-depth review of the literature covering the structural and mutational aspects of S protein in the context of SARS-CoV-2, and compared them with those of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Our analytical approach consisted in an initial genome and transcriptome analysis, followed by primary, secondary and tertiary protein structure analysis. Additionally, we investigated the potential effects of these differences on the S protein binding and interactions to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and we established, after extensive analysis of previous research articles, that SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV use different ends/regions in S protein receptor-binding motif (RBM) and different types of interactions for their chief binding with ACE2. These differences may have significant implications on pathogenesis, entry and ability to infect intermediate hosts for these coronaviruses. This review comprehensively addresses in detail the variations in S protein, its receptor-binding characteristics and detailed structural interactions, the process of cleavage involved in priming, as well as other differences between coronaviruses.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/chemistry , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/metabolism , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/chemistry , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/metabolism , Binding Sites , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/genetics , Molecular Dynamics Simulation , Protein Structure, Tertiary , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...