Eicosanoid signalling blockade protects middle-aged mice from severe COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is especially severe in aged populations1. Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly effective, but vaccine efficacy is partly compromised by the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with enhanced transmissibility2. The emergence of these variants emphasizes the need for further development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapies, especially for aged populations. Here we describe the isolation of highly virulent mouse-adapted viruses and use them to test a new therapeutic drug in infected aged animals. Many of the alterations observed in SARS-CoV-2 during mouse adaptation (positions 417, 484, 493, 498 and 501 of the spike protein) also arise in humans in variants of concern2. Their appearance during mouse adaptation indicates that immune pressure is not required for selection. For murine SARS, for which severity is also age dependent, elevated levels of an eicosanoid (prostaglandin D2 (PGD2)) and a phospholipase (phospholipase A2 group 2D (PLA2G2D)) contributed to poor outcomes in aged mice3,4. mRNA expression of PLA2G2D and prostaglandin D2 receptor (PTGDR), and production of PGD2 also increase with ageing and after SARS-CoV-2 infection in dendritic cells derived from human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Using our mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2, we show that middle-aged mice lacking expression of PTGDR or PLA2G2D are protected from severe disease. Furthermore, treatment with a PTGDR antagonist, asapiprant, protected aged mice from lethal infection. PTGDR antagonism is one of the first interventions in SARS-CoV-2-infected animals that specifically protects aged animals, suggesting that the PLA2G2D–PGD2/PTGDR pathway is a useful target for therapeutic interventions.This work is supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health USA (NIH; P01 AI060699 (S.P. and P.B.M.) and R01 AI129269 (S.P.)) and BIOAGE Labs (S.P.). The Pathology Core is partially supported by the Center for Gene Therapy for Cystic Fibrosis (NIH grant P30 DK-54759) and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. P.B.M. is supported by the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust. L.-Y.R.W. is supported by Mechanism of Parasitism Training Grant (T32 AI007511). We thank M. Gelb (University of Washington) for Pla2g2d−/− mice.Peer reviewe

Intranasal Immunization with a Vaccinia Virus Vaccine Vector Expressing Pre-Fusion Stabilized SARS-CoV-2 Spike Fully Protected Mice against Lethal Challenge with the Heavily Mutated Mouse-Adapted SARS2-N501YMA30 Strain of SARS-CoV-2

The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant has been designated as a variant of concern because its spike protein is heavily mutated. In particular, the Omicron spike is mutated at five positions (K417, N440, E484, Q493, and N501) that have been associated with escape from neutralizing antibodies induced by either infection with or immunization against the early Washington strain of SARS-CoV-2. The mouse-adapted strain of SARS-CoV-2, SARS2-N501YMA30, contains a spike that is also heavily mutated, with mutations at four of the five positions in the Omicron spike associated with neutralizing antibody escape (K417, E484, Q493, and N501). In this manuscript, we show that intranasal immunization with a pre-fusion stabilized Washington strain spike, expressed from a highly attenuated, replication-competent vaccinia virus construct, NYVAC-KC, fully protected mice against symptoms and death from SARS2-N501YMA30. Similarly, immunization by scarification on the skin fully protected against death, but not from mild disease. This data demonstrates that the Washington strain spike, when expressed from a highly attenuated, replication-competent poxvirus—administered without parenteral injection—can fully protect against the heavily mutated mouse-adapted SARS2-N501YMA30

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events